1. What is the author arguing?
In this document that we read on In Defense of the Bible there is not one author but instead there are two people in a court room. In this case it was the Clarence Darrow who was the lawyer and William Bryan who was testifying. Clarence Darrow was trying to argue for evolution and in support for T. Scopes and William Bryan was defending the Bible and try to show through his answers that he did not believe in evolution.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
Well in this argument or debate at the court room I found that Clarence Darrow was not being very logic at all through the questions he was asking in the court room because certain questions that he asked could not have just been answered on the spot but would require scientist and time to answer one example was how long ago did the flood happen now know and having read the bible you cannot just in 30 sec say how long ago it was you would have to sit and do long calculations. Another thing that I found interesting was that I noticed that Clarence Darrow was trying to prove weather Bible was accurate or not but I not find any logic in that and through that and the way William Bryan was answering the questions he should his sense of humor and showed ethos and trying to show that through these questions you cannot get much out because Bible weather you want to believe it or not is based on faith weather you want to believe it or not. I see in this passage that Darrow through these questions he showed that he was trying to almost insult Williams Bryan.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
This document is very significant and relevant because this was court and decision was battled for a long to show weather Biblical creation can be continued to be taught in school. Because I think that this was one of the main courts that might have been the start of evolution being taught in school.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
Diana you are so right! I too got the sense that even though Darrow called Bryan as an expert witness on the Bible, he treated him as if he was foolish for not questioning his faith beliefs. Each time that Darrow asked if he 'believed,' it was as if he was saying 'I understand that you believed, but don't you verify like any learned man?'
ReplyDeleteThe character of Darrow was exposed as superior and haughty. Bryan projected an image that seemed to be more simple and relatable. This isn't surprising as science often sets itself apart from the masses.
Since this was being broadcast nationally, many were able to see themselves in the two arguing parties. The real question is how many could connect with Bryan and how many gravitated towards Darrow?
diana i think you are right. There was not much support in anything he was saying. i also think that John T. Scopes should have not been teaching evolution in the first place. everyone one has different views and different religions and many different beliefs. i strongly believe it was not fight for him to go to a classroom full of high school kids and teach them this.
ReplyDeleteGreat job on the TA I really enjoyed it. This was a very interesting topic for a TA, as science went against the bible. I agree with you on how Clarence Darrow didn't ask logical questions, and because of this Bryan made a few estimates. Bryan however also lacked in some evidence. But the scientific part should not be ignored, like now days we learn about both and it's not illegal to teach evolution. I also like how you talk about both science and bible on the fourth answer. Number four is a hard question to answer because none of them were proven wrong. This argument will continue forever until more evidence is found. For now you either believe in them or you don't. When someone actually believes in an idea, they view that idea as reality. Nice TA good luck on the next discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Diana. Through the readings I also noticed that Darrow was also very unreasonable though his arguments. I felt like the questions that they asked mocked his own opinion and that it showed a very immature personality in the prosecutors. With this being a very important argument I feel as the text should have been alot more serious through the argument so that there would have been a valid ending instead of the open ended conclusion that was given. From your perspective, I understand where you are coming from when you say that the argument was not convincing because of the lack of clarification in the reading and how lost I was while reading it. Overall Good TA!
ReplyDeleteGreat job on this TA I feel your answers were all very thorough and well thought out. I agree with you one hundred percent.Darrow was asking questions that were clearly unreasonable and impossible to answer. It was like he was trying to manipulate the court with his questioning. His arguements were unreasonable as well. He was constantly contradicting himself. The arguement was not convincing what so ever and I feel there was lack of evidence on both parts.
ReplyDelete