When people argue, some like to think that there can be a compromise, a statement that proves both arguments correct. However, as this essay has shown, this is not the case. In this instance, one side proves itself to be the only correct argument.
Dawkins and Coyne, the authors of One Side Can Be Wrong, do an excellent job at proving their side of the argument. For one, they do an excellent job on disproving the other side. They point out the fallacies and discontinuities of ID (Intelligent Design) education, as well as its comparison to the other, more mainstream form of education. According to the authors, ID education is a reactionary form of teaching that is based on the faults and discontinuities of mainstream, secular education. When something cannot be proven in normal education, ID education takes over and states that this situation was created by an ID, which means that it would be too complicated for mere people to understand. Since it is nearly impossible for one side of an argument, mainstream education, to prove something that cannot be proven by that one side, the other side of the argument, ID education, can prove themselves right by stating that the something is too complex and therefore is of an Intelligent Design. It is difficult to argue that something does not exist when it cannot be proven that the something does not exist.
Score 1 for ID.
However, the authors criticize ID education for its base argument: If something cannot be proven with mainstream science, then it must have been created by an ID. They point out how wrong is an argument based on the errors of another argument by using an analogy. For instance, ID education states that things such as bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved by natural selection, that is must have been created by an ID. However, if something such as bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, then it also must have been to complex to have been created. An ID, such as God, would have to be even more complex than bacterial flagellum to have created it, which is "statistically improbable" (73). By using an analogy and making an argument based on comparison, the authors succeed in logically proving their point.
Score 1 for mainstream.
The authors compare ID education to mainstream education. Since ID education is considered to be equal to mainstream education, it must also be subject to the same methods and techniques, one of which includes the scientific explanation. If it does not, then it needs to be sent "back into the church, where it belongs" (73). People who support ID education state that it should bypass the normal scientific method. The authors disagree. If a claim was made and no argument was allowed to challenge the claim, then the claim is made without ever being proven true. This, alongside ID education's base argument, if ever truly integrated with the American education system and stated politically correct, "would be the end of science education in America" (74). Once again, the authors use simple, transitive logic to prove their point, which further strengthens their argument.
Score 2 for mainstream.
Dawkins and Coyne successfully disprove the opposing side of the argument. As they do so, they also prove their own side of the argument, tipping the scales in their favor in this literary battle.
Indeed, often time people seek compromises between two sides of an argument simply because of laziness. Though there is only one truth. As proved in this article, sometimes one side of the argument is right, the other is just completely wrong, there is no room for compromise. Dawkins and Coyne really stand out courageously and point out the fact that in the case of life origin, only one side could be right, and that is evolutionary approach.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you organized your thoughts. It is clear and structural. Between every two points you have a transitional line such as "score one for ID". It is very neat.
And I agree with you on author's way of disproving ID. The authors state the fact that the fact that theory A does not completely explain theory B does not imply theory B could explain better. Theory B, in this case, is ID. And also, the authors point out that scientifically speaking, ID is not even a real claim. It could not be tested and it could not be proved. Therefore teaching ID theory in schools is undermining American science education.
I think that there are two sides to every argument. Otherwise it isn’t an argument, it’s a fact. One Side Can Be Wrong touches on this topic. What the authors, Dawkins and Coyne, are trying to convince people that creationism should not be taught as a science theory in science class. This is a fact. There is absolutely no debating needed to clear up this fact. Yet people argue the other side, that creationism should be taught in science class, because they get defensive of their religion and do not like being told their religion id wrong. Even though that is not what Dawkins and Coyne are intending to say, their tone when writing how ridiculous it sounds to teach creationism in science class is a little harsh. This harsh and overly satirical essay evokes most of the people who believe in creationism to g et defensive.
ReplyDelete