Fletcher Robert Fletcher Kim Vodicka English 2000 51 6 May 2013 Ravitchs Law Religion & Science: An Analysis

This article, Law, Religion, and Science Determining the role religion plays in shaping scientific inquiry in constitutional democracies The case of intelligent design, attempts to portray the current war concerning intelligent design, and its role in society. Specifically, this article analyzes intelligent designs claim of being a scientific theory, and furthermore its role in the field of education. While intelligent design supporters say that it is unconstitutional to ignore intelligent design as a legitimate scientific theory, stating that we would be infringing on the peoples right to have freedom of choice, Frank Ravitch disagrees. He argues that intelligent design is not a science at all, and has no place in any scientific context. Frank Ravitch is quite obviously an advocate against intelligent design. Throughout his article, he uses many different means of persuasion, most which appeal to the rhetorical triangle (logos, ethos, and pathos) to sway the reader to align with his belief. Ravitch is able to gain the readers trust from his reputation, point out logical flaws in the argument for intelligent design, as well as influence the readers opinion with a very convincing word choice. One of Ravitchs strongest arguments against intelligent design appeals to the logos mode of persuasion; he attempts to invalidate intelligent designs place in the educational and scientific world by recognizing the logical fallacies within intelligent designs claim as a scientific theory. He claims that because of intelligent designs lack of supporting evidence, it should not be considered a science. Ravitch uses the analogy, If ID (intelligent design) is a

Fletcher scientific theory it might have a place in scientific discourse, but if not such claims will fail.

Otherwise, alchemy could claim a place in chemistry classrooms, astrology in astronomy classes and UFOlogy in a number of fields. He argues that, logically, intelligent design, as well as these other theories, is not compatible with science. On the other hand, intelligent design claims all people have the right to believe what they want freely, and by removing intelligent design from science classes, intelligent design is being discriminated against because of a lack of equal opportunities. However, by logically arguing against intelligent designs claim as a scientific field, Ravitch is deteriorating the foundation of intelligent designs argument. If Ravitch can successfully convince readers that intelligent design is not a science, then the argument intelligent design presents is worthless. Intelligent designs argument is built on the basis of it being a scientific theory; if it is no longer a theory, then it is removed from the conversation completely, rendering the equal opportunity argument null and void. One of the key questions a reader must ask when reading something is whether or not the information is valid. How can a reader trust that the author is being truthful? How can I confidently believe what I am reading? In this article, Ravitch uses a multitude of things to reassure the confidence of the reader. Firstly, the article was posted in a journal by the name of Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice. Secondly, beneath his name is his university, Michigan State University, where he is a professor. These small details allow the reader to infer that Frank Ravitch is a professor at Michigan State University, in one of the fields covered in the article (in this case, he is a law professor), and has been published by a reputable journal. These details allow the reader to gain a confidence in the essay; rhetorically speaking, the details are the framework for this publications ethos. However, the most appealing reason for trusting his argument is not the fact that he is a published professor presumably writing about

Fletcher his specific concentration; Ravitchs sound logic and the depth of his research is what gains the readers trust. Not only does he give an overly detailed history of intelligent design, going into its roots in natural theology and Christian apologetics, but also intelligent designs legal history in the United States. Ravitch makes it quite apparent that he is well informed on the topic. Ravitchs vast knowledge of the subject matter, his reputation in the field, and his sound logic allow the reader to gain a confidence and believability in what he is saying. Another instrument Ravitch uses to guide he reader to his point is one that is much more subtle; throughout the article, Ravitchs word choice throughout the article helps to sway the reader to feel more inclined to agree. Using certain phrases, the author is subtly able to downplay the opposing opinion, which, in this case, is intelligent design, while at the same time able to promote his own argument. For example, the word simply, in the following quote, undermines the views of intelligent design supporters, but hinting that there is a simple solution that could solve everything. If ID advocates simply proposed their ideas in a philosophical or theological contextideas that are already thousands of years old in those disciplinesthere would be little dispute. This is not just the sole example either. Throughout the paper, Ravitch uses select words to draw the reader to his side of the argument. For example, when describing the history of intelligent design, his tone is approaching malicious, making out supporters of intelligent design to be not only wrong, but also evil; he is making them into the bad guy

almost completely. For instance, Ravitch states, They also realized they would need to do work that could at least plausibly be called science and that they would need to gain acceptance for this work at least in the publics eye. He could have simply stated that, in order for intelligent design to be accepted by the public, it would need some scientific merit. However, Ravtich as worded it in such a way that implies that they are manipulating things behind the scene to get

Fletcher what they want. This simply, yet incredibly effective, attention to word choice can easily draw a readers attention to the authors side by making the counter-argument out to be the bad guy, while at the same time making his own argument seem like the heroic protagonist of the story. Aside from the word choice, Ravitch appeals to the readers emotions by putting some metaphorical weight on the argument. He states, If science is successfully undermined by religiously grounded theories future scientific research could be effected and advances slowed. This statement is adding some significance to this issue. It plays right along with the good

guy/bad guy tone of the argument, giving the good guy a reason to fight for his side. It makes the argument seem much more serious; a lot is dependent on the choices made over this situation. Ravitch does a fantastic job in his article, Law, Religion, and Science Determining the role religion plays in shaping scientific inquiry in constitutional democracies The case of intelligent design, of presenting the argument in such a way that the reader is inclined to agree with him. He appeals to all modes of persuasion: logically disproving the counter-argument (logos), presenting himself as a trustworthy source using his stature and knowledge on the subject (ethos), and emotionally investing the reader in his argument by very selective word choice and by explaining the influence this argument has (pathos). Overall, this article makes the reader come away feeling confidently informed about the current war over intelligent design, yet at the same time it is able to guide the reader into agreeing with Ravitchs side of the war.

Fletcher Works Cited Ravitch, Frank S. "Law, Religion And Science Determining The Role Religion Plays In Shaping Scientific Inquiry In Constitutional Democracies The Case Of Intelligent Design." Contemporary Readings In Law & Social Justice 4.1 (2012): 191-204. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.