Miles Kim

4.15.16
Media Analysis Week 3
God, Darwin and My College Biology Class
1. I personally liked how the author added a unexpected twist at
what his argument stated. While he does mention the overlap
between evolution and religion, he only does so to use as a
jumping off point for his main purpose to explain the disparity
between the two. I like his way of reasoning in thought process to
later come to his final conclusion that evolution should be
thought separate from religion. He starts off with a disclaimer as
a rhetorical form of ethos to why he is competent to talk about
this. Then the transition into the The Talk which he points out
the main point which is to claim evolution is the base for all
biological sciences. The argument transitions into the issue that
arises as students learn more about the tension between
evolution and religion over time becomes discomforting. I
personally did not like his rather harsh tone against Goulds
claims. Although he later has a conceding point that is
incontrovertible his tone was still stringent.
a. Later on throughout his main argument arises which I like
how he added a sense of realness with the reactions of his
students regarding The Talk
2. I think the authors argument is compelling in that his main point
in persuading the readers is how Darwins explanation that the
living the world can exist in structure without some higher being
but simply a traceable connectedness as well as physiological
mechanism. He goes on to point a counters religion as potentially
or God as the creator of the living world by using absolute
adjectives to describe God as omni-benevolent who would not
create a world of ethical horrors: predation, parasitism.
Lastly, the author ends with a respectful tone so that he is open
to be heard by readers regarding his conclusion.
a. I guess the only hole would be he berates by quoting only
one source of authority while using Gould as a source of
most of his counterclaims.
3. Like I mentioned earlier, I think the author came off too strong in
responding to Gould. But he soon transitions into a basic
concession that helps move the conversation along.
4. I like how the tone takes somewhat of a personal narrative by
establishing who the author is and the context with his students.
He balances a tone that is harsh on Gould while throughout he
has a sensible tone with his patterns of reasoning. Finally, the
conclusion is respectful yet true to his main argument stating
how he has no issue with those who still believe evolution and

religion and strong interrelated yet he admonishes dissenters by

stating they will have to undertake some challenging mental
gymnastic routines.