The Monkeys Are Having Another Trial?
Monkey’s have trials? No, however there are human court trials that bring out the monkey in us all. These trials are part of an on going debate of religion vs. evolution. Charles Krauthammer is giving us his side as well as a bit of history of the on going debate. Here I provide a summary and analysis of Krauthammer’s article and a bit of my own thoughts on the subject.
In his article, “Let’s Have No more Monkey Trials,” printed in Time on August 8th, 2005, Charles Krauthammer discusses religion invading science. He points out in the first paragraph how the nation is fed up with organizations, such as the A.C.L.U., limiting the freedom of religion. Which then leads to the discussion of conservative school-boards “attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution” and how the Catholic Church views science and evolution. Thus leading to the discussion of why religion cannot replace science. Krauthammer then provides some historical reference to the continuation of the religion versus science argument. This then leads to Krauthammer’s position or point of view for this article. Krauthammer’s statement “What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion.” From which Krauthammer goes on to show that science is not encroaching on the territory of religion and questions the validity of religion trying to fill the holes that science is not able to fill at this time. He finally concludes with an argument that “To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science…to discredit the welcome recent advances in…public expression of religion.” Through out all Krauthammer makes effective appeals to Pathos and Logos while his appeal to Ethos is weak. I’ll discuss these in the following paragraphs.
First I’ll start with Krauthammer’s attempt at Pathos. The respect for religion, shown by his statements "most salutary restoration," "welcome recent advance in permitting the public expression of religion," (78) reflects a great attempt at pathos, while attempting to argue that religion has no place in the scientific field or class.
The attempt at Ethos that Krauthammer makes is best shown through in his use of historical references, statements involving historical debates like this one between "…Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less." (78) Krauthammer’s idea is to show that he has done some homework and to show the reader that this debate is not new. But, it appears to me that it is a weak attempt because he could provide some more evidence that reflects what science has done to prove this and other things concerning evolution and Intelligent Design.
However, this evidence does feed Krauthammer’s attempt at Logos. The Logos of Krauthammer’s is that science and religion are too different in their thoughts and processes that neither can be taught as the other. In the second and conclusion paragraphs he states that religion can only undermine its resurgence except by imposing itself on science. He argues that “To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion.” (78) Here Krauthammer states his meaning, religion can not be science and science cannot be religion. Where there are gaps in science, religion should not make attempts to explain them. Thus the argument finds its basis in the question of religion's place in the classroom. Krauthammer states that "if you believe that science is reason” and “reason begins with recognizing” the “existence of an immanent providence, then this is science.” (78) However, Krauthammer argues that these ideas are not what science is. He says “Science begins not with first principles but…observation and experimentation.” (78) These statements follow a definite linear logic. The basis of the whole argument is that where facts are given and where the ideas of religion have been disproved, religion can not fill in for science. Science is not religion and religion is not science.
However, for an effective and objective debate, Krauthammer’s article includes very little information or evidence. The only facts or evidence, he presents are a speech by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna (paraphrased), and historical data based on an argument between a Dutch clergyman and astronomer and another astronomer concerning elliptical orbits, and his definition of science, as quoted in the previous paragraph. Otherwise he presents nothing more than his own opinion. What should be added on his part are evidence showing what intelligent design is, what science does and does not know, and what could happen should the two be mixed in a science classroom.
Despite the lack of helpful evidence, Krauthammer’s choice of words could have an important impact in persuading a reader to align themselves with his ideas and arguments. Words with strong connotation like “invasion,” “undermine,” “gratuitous attempts,” “modern step child,” “most powerful and elegant,” and “bedrock,” all of which would carry some strong connotations for those easily swayed or of a like mind. They also show how negative Krauthammer is toward Intelligent Design. Like most articles of this sort, he is looking to “preach to the choir”, as it were. Krauthammer is making an attempt to rally or rile up those against Intelligent Design while not trying to get himself branded as an extremist.
Like the choice of words, Krauthammer’s use of long and complex sentence structure with moderate language shows that he is a somewhat knowledgeable person that wishes to be understood by a broad audience. I would also say that the use of this strategy helps to shield him from too much general criticism. The sentence structure also helps to hide the limited amount of support he has produced for his argument. After reading the whole article an average reader would either absolutely disagree or absolutely agree. If Krauthammer were to have used shorter less complex sentence structure, he would have not been able to make his point as clearly, and he would have had to put in a lot more supporting evidence and arguments.
Overall, Krauthammer made an effective opinion based argument. However, to truly argue the point Krauthammer needs more evidence. He lacks evidence in showing that science is right or that religion is wrong. Or that either should stay out of the way of the other. At this juncture, the argument of evolution and creation or intelligent design, either could be accurate. From my point of view, both are right. I have found that the development of the universe is neither by pure chance or physics, nor by an actual creator. I tend to believe that, in a way to put it, the universe is like a computer program; a program written in such a fashion that it is learning, or develops from other input, similar to when a scientist combines two molecules and comes up with a new substance. With the advancement of quantum physics and quantum mechanics this idea is becoming more and more real. From all this, it could be said that where Krauthammer argues against the religion filling the wholes of science, it may be possible religion can. Religion would need to change some of its philosophies and maybe incorporate some science, but it possibly could. Unfortunately, I do not have enough background knowledge to argue this case further. Krauthammer does not change my mind on any matter, nor does he really persuade me to change my views. From his article all that has changed for me is that I have developed an interest in learning more about Intelligent Design. Neither side seems to have a clear claim to the development of the universe or Homo Sapiens-Sapiens. When all is considered, as far as Krauthammer’s article is concerned, the argument and debate needs more time and evidence or maybe some more monkey trials. Or, should it be said, more trials by monkeys?
In his article, “Let’s Have No more Monkey Trials,” printed in Time on August 8th, 2005, Charles Krauthammer discusses religion invading science. He points out in the first paragraph how the nation is fed up with organizations, such as the A.C.L.U., limiting the freedom of religion. Which then leads to the discussion of conservative school-boards “attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution” and how the Catholic Church views science and evolution. Thus leading to the discussion of why religion cannot replace science. Krauthammer then provides some historical reference to the continuation of the religion versus science argument. This then leads to Krauthammer’s position or point of view for this article. Krauthammer’s statement “What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion.” From which Krauthammer goes on to show that science is not encroaching on the territory of religion and questions the validity of religion trying to fill the holes that science is not able to fill at this time. He finally concludes with an argument that “To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science…to discredit the welcome recent advances in…public expression of religion.” Through out all Krauthammer makes effective appeals to Pathos and Logos while his appeal to Ethos is weak. I’ll discuss these in the following paragraphs.
First I’ll start with Krauthammer’s attempt at Pathos. The respect for religion, shown by his statements "most salutary restoration," "welcome recent advance in permitting the public expression of religion," (78) reflects a great attempt at pathos, while attempting to argue that religion has no place in the scientific field or class.
The attempt at Ethos that Krauthammer makes is best shown through in his use of historical references, statements involving historical debates like this one between "…Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less." (78) Krauthammer’s idea is to show that he has done some homework and to show the reader that this debate is not new. But, it appears to me that it is a weak attempt because he could provide some more evidence that reflects what science has done to prove this and other things concerning evolution and Intelligent Design.
However, this evidence does feed Krauthammer’s attempt at Logos. The Logos of Krauthammer’s is that science and religion are too different in their thoughts and processes that neither can be taught as the other. In the second and conclusion paragraphs he states that religion can only undermine its resurgence except by imposing itself on science. He argues that “To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion.” (78) Here Krauthammer states his meaning, religion can not be science and science cannot be religion. Where there are gaps in science, religion should not make attempts to explain them. Thus the argument finds its basis in the question of religion's place in the classroom. Krauthammer states that "if you believe that science is reason” and “reason begins with recognizing” the “existence of an immanent providence, then this is science.” (78) However, Krauthammer argues that these ideas are not what science is. He says “Science begins not with first principles but…observation and experimentation.” (78) These statements follow a definite linear logic. The basis of the whole argument is that where facts are given and where the ideas of religion have been disproved, religion can not fill in for science. Science is not religion and religion is not science.
However, for an effective and objective debate, Krauthammer’s article includes very little information or evidence. The only facts or evidence, he presents are a speech by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna (paraphrased), and historical data based on an argument between a Dutch clergyman and astronomer and another astronomer concerning elliptical orbits, and his definition of science, as quoted in the previous paragraph. Otherwise he presents nothing more than his own opinion. What should be added on his part are evidence showing what intelligent design is, what science does and does not know, and what could happen should the two be mixed in a science classroom.
Despite the lack of helpful evidence, Krauthammer’s choice of words could have an important impact in persuading a reader to align themselves with his ideas and arguments. Words with strong connotation like “invasion,” “undermine,” “gratuitous attempts,” “modern step child,” “most powerful and elegant,” and “bedrock,” all of which would carry some strong connotations for those easily swayed or of a like mind. They also show how negative Krauthammer is toward Intelligent Design. Like most articles of this sort, he is looking to “preach to the choir”, as it were. Krauthammer is making an attempt to rally or rile up those against Intelligent Design while not trying to get himself branded as an extremist.
Like the choice of words, Krauthammer’s use of long and complex sentence structure with moderate language shows that he is a somewhat knowledgeable person that wishes to be understood by a broad audience. I would also say that the use of this strategy helps to shield him from too much general criticism. The sentence structure also helps to hide the limited amount of support he has produced for his argument. After reading the whole article an average reader would either absolutely disagree or absolutely agree. If Krauthammer were to have used shorter less complex sentence structure, he would have not been able to make his point as clearly, and he would have had to put in a lot more supporting evidence and arguments.
Overall, Krauthammer made an effective opinion based argument. However, to truly argue the point Krauthammer needs more evidence. He lacks evidence in showing that science is right or that religion is wrong. Or that either should stay out of the way of the other. At this juncture, the argument of evolution and creation or intelligent design, either could be accurate. From my point of view, both are right. I have found that the development of the universe is neither by pure chance or physics, nor by an actual creator. I tend to believe that, in a way to put it, the universe is like a computer program; a program written in such a fashion that it is learning, or develops from other input, similar to when a scientist combines two molecules and comes up with a new substance. With the advancement of quantum physics and quantum mechanics this idea is becoming more and more real. From all this, it could be said that where Krauthammer argues against the religion filling the wholes of science, it may be possible religion can. Religion would need to change some of its philosophies and maybe incorporate some science, but it possibly could. Unfortunately, I do not have enough background knowledge to argue this case further. Krauthammer does not change my mind on any matter, nor does he really persuade me to change my views. From his article all that has changed for me is that I have developed an interest in learning more about Intelligent Design. Neither side seems to have a clear claim to the development of the universe or Homo Sapiens-Sapiens. When all is considered, as far as Krauthammer’s article is concerned, the argument and debate needs more time and evidence or maybe some more monkey trials. Or, should it be said, more trials by monkeys?
posted by Luke at 3:26 PM
1 Comments:
ll see much better results with this diet plan than you would with
others that use some generic formula to calculate
your nutrient needs. Except this is exactly
what does happen, frequently in badly considered build muscle strategies.
In general, there is no doubt that the program Kyle Leon is a popular muscle building system for a
good reason and this is definitely one of the most individual nutrients and online training programs today.
Here is my homepage - Somanabolic Muscle Maximizer Results
Post a Comment
<< Home