I'm not the most eloquent of writers. However, after reading an article in my school paper yesterday I feel I need to respond.
Above is the article I plan on writing a rebuttal to. However, I'm not quite sure where to begin.
Right now I'm planning on:
Stating that disproving evolution doesn't prove intelligent design. While this guy's column was called Give Intelligent Design a Look, he spent the entire thing trying to poke holes in evolution. While he attempted to disprove evolution, he did almost nothing to explain why intelligent design is so good.
Debunking nearly all of his major arguments.
Is arguing with him on the Miller Urey experiment worth it? I don't plan on it at the moment because it's more of a how did life begin type question rather than one dealing with evolution.
Show that he lacks a clear understanding of evolution based on his fruit fly argument, mentioning the Miller Urey experiment, and comments about Darwin.
Here is what I have so far:
Originally Posted by Billy
In response to Mr. Davis’ “Give Intelligent Design a Look” editorial, Not only did Mr. Davis fail to provide any compelling reasons to look at intelligent design, he also lacks a clear understanding of evolution and spread grossly inaccurate scientific information.
Is my plan for the ediorial good? How is my introduction looking?