Response to One Side Can Be Wrong by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne - Article Review Example

One Side can be wrong by Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne is a remarkable article, which provides insights on why students should look at both sides of an argument because one of them can be wrong. In the article, the authors explore evolution and creationism, also called intelligent design. In their argument, they affirm that it is necessary to explore both sides of a particular topic because none of them can be proven wrong. Additionally, they contend that every person should decide to choose whatever they believe. According to their explanation, no one should limit himself or herself to one topic because they might be unable to find faulty evidence on any side of the argument. The paper provides a response to Dawkin and Coynes essay based on pathos.

The authors speak of intelligent design. In their work, they explain how controversies in an argument provide a lively argument for student discussions (p.71). As the authors explain, students face a myriad of challenges in topics of evolution (71). Truly, when students think of an essay topic, especially argumentative, they have to analyze both sides of an argument in a coherent manner. However, the authors strongly affirm that educators should not teach creationism in schools because it has no scientific evidence (71). In their work, they affirm that no evidence of Gods behavior on the day he went to work is available on videotapes (72). As they explain, biologists and scientists are confident because they can manage to explain the existence of fossil records for a myriad of evolutionary transitions. Here, I agree with them that evolution should be the major topic in schools because of scientists acknowledgment worldwide.

In their essay, they affirm that a controversy such as evolution and creationism are topics worthy of both sides treatment (71). Apparently, evolution and creationism are two different aspects, which attempt to explain a similar thing. Studies of evolution depict that living things came from organisms, which gradually developed. Creationism, on the other hand, relates to religion and the Bible, where God created Adam and Eve. The authors state that in both in evolution and creationism studies, people experience challenges when they determine which side experiences difficulty, and which one produces evidence (72). In the book, they emphasize that evolution is devoid of disproof (73). In fact, they state that the topic of evolution has come through with flying colors. They provide an example of bacterial flagellum, which is too complex to have evolved through natural selection (73). They contend that if the bacterial flagellum was too intricate to have evolved, then it might have been too compound for God to create.

In summary, pathos appears to play an implicit role in One Side can be wrong. Towards the end of the article, the authors become strongly opinionated on their belief that creationism is not a scientific theory. They use pathos by explaining that science education would end in America if evolution were solely based creationism. However, from a personal perspective, the topics of evolution and creationism are similar because they both involve the creation of life and the universe. However, evolution outweighs creationism because it changed the original organisms, which God laid on the world. Overall, in the book, the authors allow their developed opinions to merge into the actual writing.