Cleveland Astronomy Examiner. His bias is that he is a scientist and does not want creationism being thrown in with legitimate scientific information. He assumes that his audience shares his commonplace belief. I would say that there is an equal balance of pathos and logos in his argument. He proves that some teachers teach creationism by showing facts and then uses pathos to describe why this is not a good thing. The authors argument is summed up by his last few sentences, "There are many great things about religion, such as ethical principles, its function as a social bonding agent, influence on the arts, and many others. However, religion is not science and it should be kept out of the science classroom." Since I already felt this way it is hard for me to say if I was persuaded by the article or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment