Richard Dawkins, through his article One Side Can Be Wrong, claims that although presenting two sides to every story is a good teaching strategy in theory, it shouldn’t be used if one of the sides is wrong. This statement sets him up to prove his thesis, that the creationism theory should not even be considered a scientific theory. I generally agree with this claim, considering that religion and science have nothing to do with each other, and therefore religion should have no place in a scientific classroom, much less a scientific argument. In my opinion, a divide between religion and science should be made, just like the divide we have between church and state in politics.
Dawkins’ intended audience seems to be the general public, since the article was published in a popular news journal, and since most of his science and teacher buddies probably already agree with him. It probably comes from the scientific community, as he uses a lot of words that are prevalent in that discourse community, as well as the teaching community, as he brings up his identity as a teacher as a basis for his information.…show more content… Another example of an appeal to ethos in the text is the way that he brings up all of the more credible arguments within evolution, which include many complex parts of evolution that a normal person wouldn’t know about. The greater vocabulary, as I mentioned before as part of the science discourse community, shows that he has a lot of experience in, and understands the subject of evolution. Furthermore, the vocabulary that he uses such as “bacterial flagellum” and “Phenomenon X backs up his claims with this specific and intelligent word choice, making him seem more reliable to people outside of the evolution