IÃ‚Â would be interested in how you would grade Mr. ThanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s article (see a couple of posts down) Ã‚Â if it were a project in a journalism class you were teaching.Ã‚Â I am not a journalist, but from my lay perspective he gets points off for:
1.Ã‚Â Value laden language.Ã‚Â Depending on oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s perspective, Ã¢â‚¬Å“near the bottomÃ¢â‚¬Â could just as easily be Ã¢â‚¬Å“near the topÃ¢â‚¬Â for independence of thought, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“low rankingÃ¢â‚¬Â could be Ã¢â‚¬Å“high rankingÃ¢â‚¬Â for a wholesome skeptical scientific attitude.
2.Ã‚Â Stating opinions as facts.Ã‚Â His wholesale adoption of IDÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opponentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s characterization of ID as factual statements, instead of statements of their opinion, is a mistake.
On the positive side, he at least gave someone with an ID point of view an opportunity to respond.Ã‚Â On the negative side of this same issue, the Darwinist to ID ratio was four to one, and it was easy to lose the lone ID comment in the clutter near the bottom of the article.
In my admittedly unprofessional opinion, I would give him a C-.
By the way, this is not intended to be a strictly academic exercise.Ã‚Â I will gather all of your responses and email them to Mr. Than.Ã‚Â Hopefully he will consider it constructive criticism.Ã‚Â Maybe he will even favor us with a response.