Spring 2010 Critical Thinking Student Sample Work

Please post model work here:

Graded Reconstruction

Student #1

The general conclusion that Michael Ruse is making is that intelligent design should be kept out of biology classes in state run schools. This overall conclusion is supported by two separate arguments. First, he argues, that teaching Intelligent design in biology class is unconstitutional. Additionally, it should not be taught because it is not the best that we have to offer students.

The argument that it is unconstitutional is supported with the ideas that it is religious. This breaches the constitutional separation of church and state, and teaching religion in any class other than comparative religions is illegal. To support that it is he religious he argues that intelligent design requires an intelligent designer to explain life’s complexities, because no other theories, such as Darwinism can. He claims that this intelligent designer is pretty universally understood as the Christian idea of God. According to the author, intelligent design advocates a set of beliefs, which is the basis of religion. Having freedom of religion in the United States means that religions or values cannot be forced, but he argues that intelligent design projects a certain value set, so is unconstitutional. Further he argues that is under the umbrella of creationism, which is understood as religious. He is able to make this argument, because they both support that moral issues are critical to evolution. Further he argues that writings for intelligent design often argue in favor of Christianity. These points all support that teaching intelligent design is religious, which is unconstitutional.

The second reason that intelligent design should not be taught in biology class is that it is not the best option for a science class. The premise for this is that intelligent design is a “science stopper.” To argue this point he writes that once it is understood that an intelligent being acts, there is no where to move or grow scientifically. Science works because people try to find answers to problems, but intelligent design stops the search for answers. This hinders scientific learning, making it a poor way to teach and perpetuate biology. The best thing to teach students is the most accurate information available, and critical skills to move learning onward. Ruse argues that intelligent design cannot do that, which prescribes that it should not be taught in biology classes.

Therefore because intelligent design is religious, making it unconstitutional to teach in biology, and because it is not the best theory to teach, it should not be taught in biology classes.

Student #2

In the article, “Intelligent Design Should Be taught in Religion Classes, Not Science” the general conclusion stated is, Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes. The critic supports this conclusion with three claims. The first claim states that intelligent design is unconstitutional; secondly he states that intelligent design is a form of creationism and thirdly he makes the claim that intelligent design is not a fruitful science.

Mr. Ruse states that teaching intelligent design in science classrooms is unconstitutional. He is basing this claim off of the amendment in the constitution that explicitly creates a separation between church and state. He supports his claim with two premises. The first premise states that on Dec. 20, 2005 a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in a Pennsylvania school district if in a science classroom. The second premise to support his claim states, Intelligent design is religion carefully disguised as a science to get around the constitution therefore, it is deemed unconstitutional.

The second claim Mr. Ruse made to support his general conclusion states, Intelligent Design is a form of creationism which is a biblical science hence being a science based on religion. The first premise to support his claim states, that both intelligent design and creationists believe that the earth was created by a higher being or, God. The second premise to support his claim, which supports the general conclusion, says that both groups worry more about “moral values”.

Lastly Mr. Ruse makes the claim that Intelligent Design is, “Not a fruitful science”. His first premise to support his claim is that Intelligent Design is a science stopper, he believes that if you say that someone (God) intervened, then you are stuck about what to do next. He believes that science works by assuming blind law and then going out to find it (the solution). The second premise is that Intelligent Design adds nothing to our store of knowledge therefore it is not a valid or useful science; hence, a “fruitful science”.

In conclusion, Mr. Ruse believes that Intelligent Design should stay out of science classrooms because it is unconstitutional based on the constitutional amendment separating church and state, secondly because it has a direct correlation to creationism which is a biblical science, and lastly because it is a fruitful science.

Student #3

In “Intelligent Design Should be Taught in Religion Classes, Not Science” by Michael Ruse, Ruse argues exactly what the title suggests. He argues that intelligent design should be taught in a comparative religion class rather than a biology class. The author has four arguments to support this claim.

The first argument is that intelligent design has numerous ties to creationism, and specifically, Christianity. The first premise for this is that in intelligent design writings, the authors are clearly talking about the Christian God, though this is never stated. The second premise for this is that William Dembski, one of the leaders of the movement has openly claimed to seeing the designing intelligence as the Logos talked about at the beginning of the Saint John’s Gospel. The third premise is not stated by the author, but is implied. It is that if one of the leaders of the movement sees the intelligent designer as being the Christian God, then it is probable that most people who engage in the belief of intelligent design, believe the same. The fourth premise is that intelligent design advocates believe in “moral living”, much in the same way that Christians do. The fifth premise is that intelligent design writings speak of morality in the direction of evangelical Christianity. The sixth premise is also a conclusion for this first argument as well as an intermediate conclusion for the author’s ultimate claim and is used as a premise in several more of his arguments. The premise is that intelligent design is religion disguised as science.

This premise is also used as the first premise of the second argument that Ruse uses. This argument is that intelligent design should be taught in religious courses. The second premise of this argument is that, in a religion class, intelligent design would be taught alongside other religions where comparisons could be made. The third premise is that, in a religion class, intelligent design would not be taught as truth, but as a system to which others prescribe. Both of them premises support his claim that intelligent design belongs in a religion class. Essentially Ruse’s argument is that, since intelligent design is simply disguised religion, it should be taught in an environment in which it is not claimed as fact.

The third argument that Ruse uses is that teaching intelligent design in science classes is unconstitutional. This argument has three premises, the first of which is the same as the first premise for the previous argument. That is that intelligent design is religion disguised as science. The second premise is implied and is assumed to be known by the reader. This premise is a simple knowledge of the Constitution and the separation of church and state laws. The third premise is also implied and is that teaching this religious theory in a science class would violate these separation of church and state laws.

The fourth and final argument used by Ruse is that teaching intelligent design in a science class is not good educational practice. The first premise for this is that intelligent design is a “science stopper”. Once the idea of intelligent intervention is introduced, no further speculation can be made on the origin of the universe. The second premise is that, because of the first premise, intelligent design adds nothing to the human store of knowledge. The third premise is that good education does not offer the student choices or options and let them choose. Good education, instead, offers the student the best knowledge that is known and gives them the skills to take inquiry further. The fourth premise is implied and is that evolution is the best knowledge that is known and should therefore be taught as fact, over intelligent design.

Ruse thereby proves that intelligent design belongs in religion classes, instead of science classes by arguing that it is indeed a religion. From there he argues that it belongs in religion class and that teaching it in science class is both unconstitutional and bad educational practice.

Student #4

The general conclusion of the article on Intelligent Design (ID) Theory is that ID should be taught in religion classes, not biology classes. The first argument that supports this is that ID is a religious idea. The first premise for this argument is that ID supporters make it clear that the ‘intelligent designer’ referred to in their theory is the Christian God. The next premise in support of the first argument is that ID also focuses on staying true to certain moral values. The third premise is also an intermediate conclusion and it is that ID is very similar to creationism. The final premise for the first argument is that most supporters of ID agree that moral values are the true focus of ID and that evolution points to a bad future.

The second argument for the general conclusion is that ID should be allowed in courses on religion, not including theology. The first premise for this is that children should learn about as many beliefs as possible in order to have a better understanding of the world. The second premise that follows is that in a religious course, ID would be taught as an idea that some people followed, but not necessarily a truth. The third and final premise also serves as an intermediate conclusion and it is that children should learn about ID.

The third argument is that teaching ID in biology classes in state-supported schools is unconstitutional. The first and only premise for this is that it is illegal to teach a religious theory in a state-supported school outside of a religious comparison class.

The next argument is that allowing students to choose between Darwinism and ID as part of a class won’t work. The first premise for this is that good education is “teaching the best that you have, together with the critical skills to take inquiry further- perhaps indeed overturning everything that we hold dear.” The next premise is that giving students a variety of options and simply letting them choose one isn’t good education. This is also an intermediate conclusion.

The fifth and final argument is that ID shouldn’t be in biology classes. The first premise is that it would contradict with what is currently being taught in biology. The next premise is an intermediate conclusion; you can’t teach both ID and Darwinism in biology classes. The final premise is that since Darwinism is already an accepted part of biology, ID shouldn’t be added to the class.

All of these arguments support the statement in the general conclusion. The fact that it would be unconstitutional should be argument enough, but the other arguments provide other legitimate reasons for ID being acceptable in religious classes but not a biology class.

1st practice reconstruction: "The Court's Blow to Democracy"

Student One

In “The Court’s Blow to Democracy” the author argues that the recent The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a bad decision and should be overturned. The author uses six rationales to defend this conclusion, five of which are arguments, and one is an explanation. The premises of the first argument are that corporations are no longer banned from spending directly on political campaigns, and corporations can threaten to campaign against elected officials that do not vote in the corporation’s favor. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision has opened the door for corporations to use their money to manipulate elections and elected officials. The premises of the second argument are that in 1907 Congress banned corporations from contributing to candidates, and in the 1950’s Congress enacted a broader ban on corporate political spending that was repeatedly reaffirmed over the years. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and elections. The premise of the third argument is that the founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence, and that founding fathers knew what was good for the country. The conclusion is that we should listen to the founder’s advice that corporate influence is dangerous. The fourth argument is that corporations are not people and should not be granted the same First Amendment rights as people because they are artificial legal constructs that exist to make money. The fifth argument is that independent expenditures by corporations do cause corruption or the appearance of corruption, for example if Wall Street had threatened to campaign against anyone who opposed their bailout, it would look corrupt. The last rationale and only explanation is that the court’s decision was politically motivated to give Republican candidates an advantage in future elections.

Student Two

There are 3 rationales in this article. For the first rationale, the author utilizes 2 premises to draw an intermediate conclusion that contributes to the general conclusion. The first premise is that corporations are artificial legal constructs. The second premise states that corporations are created by the state to make money. Because of these premises, the author makes the intermediate conclusion that corporations should not be legally considered “people”. The second rationale has 2 premises. The first premise is that this ruling will presumably ensure that Republican candidates will have an advantage in future elections. The second premise states that democracy is crucial for fair elections. The intermediate conclusion is that this ruling strikes at the heart of democracy. The third rationale includes 3 premises. The first premise is that the constitution does not mention corporations as institutions that are protected by the First Amendment. The second premise states that in 1907 it was decided that corporations should not contribute to candidates. The third premise states that midcentury this decision was reaffirmed and has been ever since. The intermediate conclusion here is that we should follow time-proven tradition of the constitution. Thus, the general conclusion of this argument is that this court ruling was a bad decision.

Student Three

In this article, the author argues that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to spend whatever amount they want in the country’s elections to elect a candidate is a bad ruling and should be overturned. This is his general conclusion. The first rationale he gives to support his underlying statement is that the courts did not make a good legal decision. His first premise for this argument is that the decision “reverses well-established law,” meaning that since this issue has come to the court before and was ruled oppositely, it has overturned the laws that the Supreme Court has already passed. Secondly, that the decision should not have been decided in the first place because they didn’t look enough into it and made their decision too quickly. The second rationale is that the ruling goes against previous warnings about corporations. The premise states that the founders had not included rights for corporations in the Constitution because they are not people and they should not have the same rights as people. Because they were not included in the Constitution, their freedom of speech rights would not support democracy and should therefore not be given to them. The third rationale the author presents to the readers is about how corporations will corrupt democracy. He states that giving corporations these rights will sway elections so much that they will appear corrupt.