"The Word 'Ethos' Can be Found in 'Darwin's Theory'"

In analyzing “Beyond the Realm of Reason,” it’s important to note that rhetoric, in regards to the environment, conducts two types of cultural work; “one which produces knowledge about the physical world, and one which produces the consciousness-the identities of those who produce that knowledge.” When rhetoric fulfills this dual-propose, it provides its users with a “norm,” or (as stated in “Beyond the Realm of Reason”) a socially recognized identity and a position from which to speak and act upon it. A very “socially known” discourse is Darwin’s “theory of evolution,” and it was interesting to see that the article "Why Darwin is False” challenges this theory, and its title seemingly “mocks” Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True.” Part of what makes evolution such a polarizing subject is the ideology of how we can prove or disprove it. The CSC is more concerned with making claims based on religion, whereas supporters of the evolution theory are more concerned with physical, material evidence of fossil records.
Our views as to which rhetoric is more “convincing” is greatly affected by our “linguistic habitus;” a set of cultural beliefs that we not only grew up with, but ones that we generally feel comfortable with and value. Since the author of “Why Darwin is False,” Jonathan Wells, lacks more empirical evidence than a Darwinian, he shapes his discourse (how he makes claims) as if they’re factual; for example, in rebutting “Why Evolution is True” Wells typically starts his argument by stating “if Darwinian theory were true,” then he’d end his claim by stating “so much for Coyne’s prediction.” Regardless of how much reasoning Wells provides while making these claims, he’s presenting them as facts, and instilling a notion to his audience that everything they thought they knew about evolution simply isn’t true. Personally speaking, I feel that the Discovery Institute’s credibility should be in question when considering their arguments, and that we shouldn’t fall for their misleading discourse. There are a multitude of issues our society does not have a concrete answer to, and when culture can’t present us with a recognizable “norm” or identity, we develop topics of high polarity and controversy. Robin states “we want to step back from our disagreement with the ultraconservative position of the John Birch Society-step back from our opposition to what seems bad policy, bad science, bad argument- and attempt to understand their rhetoric as a complex social exchange through which members of the John Birch Society assert the power and prestige of their language, beliefs, and, as we argue, their social identity and position. Just like in cultural studies, I would argue more importantly than being right or wrong is how you can back up your answer, what evidence can you use, and how you use it. This will determine what people will believe and what you may even convince them of.” When we deal with issues like evolution, it’s not only important to take the nature of the world into account, but also the identity, place, and upbringing of the individuals involved in the debate.