Katha Pollitt's article "What's the Matter With Creationism?" for The Nation scoffs at the number of learned supporters of creationism, combining constant sarcasm with academic opinion and the relentless use of statistics.
I just wanted to beat Amy to the comments. Quick think. I love the use of the word "learned", though "consistent percentages" seems a little off, maybe just me, its making more sense as i reread. Gotta post before she edges me out. Good job!
I think I missed a few that were posted well before tonight's (and should probably have commented on those first), so feel free to beat me -- get on those!
6 comments:
I just wanted to beat Amy to the comments. Quick think. I love the use of the word "learned", though "consistent percentages" seems a little off, maybe just me, its making more sense as i reread. Gotta post before she edges me out. Good job!
Jim,
I've got mostly picky advice since the statement's fairly solid. Here goes:
I like "learned supporters" and "scoffs" -- really strong and very subjective verb but one that's apropos, by the way (not part of the critique).
***You need a comma rather than a semi-colon.
You might want to put "article" or "editorial" before the name of the article.
"Constant" refers to time rather than physical space -- "consistent", maybe? Not a big deal here either way.
Not clear on "academic" opinion (this implies she's a scholar writing as a scholar, literally, as an academic).
The percentages are consistent with . . . what?
Small potatoes, I know. But that's why they pay me the big bucks, right?
Writing a paper on this article myself, I used the term "statistics."
Before "she edges [you] out". Ha. Please. You DID beat me ... we'll leave the judgment of commentary up to Jim.
Will,
I think I missed a few that were posted well before tonight's (and should probably have commented on those first), so feel free to beat me -- get on those!
Very strong thesis.
Post a Comment