PART B: LANGUAGE AWARENESS
The following commentaries from USA Today deal with the debate between Creationism
(a theological belief that the universe and life itself resulted from a supreme being, God,
based on an Intelligent Design) and Evolutionism (a term used by Evangelical Christians
to refer to Darwin’s theory which supports biological evolution by natural selection or
genetic drift) and whether the latter should be taught in schools. Read them in order to
decide whether they adopt a positive, negative or neutral stance about each one of them.
In no more that 150 words per article, justify your answers by drawing on the underlying
assumptions and the linguistic devices employed in each case. For your analysis you
could focus on (some of) the following linguistic areas of concern:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Naming devices
Lexical cohesion
Theme
Adjectival or relative-clause descriptions assigning specific attributes or
qualities
5. Transitivity and Agency (actional processes (transactives – non-transactives),
relational processes)
6. Modality
7. Presuppositions and implicatures
TEXT 1
Academic science of today often does not abide by true scientific law, but propitiates slanted
study that under its own scrutiny fails. Most study on ultimate origins has been done with the
intent of denying creation, treating the "Theory of Evolution" as fact even though it has been
proven scientifically impossible.
It takes more faith to believe in the absence of a divine hand than it does to recognize the
intricate balance of all things physical and appreciate the scientific reasoning that it could not
have happened by chance, that "Intelligent Design" had to be involved. Imagine putting the pieces
of a million fine wrist watches in a paper bag (a big bag). Now shake this bag for 6 billion years
and expect the watches to be running and on perfect time when you are finished. Preposterous,
isn't it? Yet we are to have faith that our intricately designed universe came about by a "Big
Bang," a feat that is statistically impossible without "Intelligent Design" as part of the equation.
The Theory of Intelligent Design actually holds more rational evidence than does the Theory of
Evolution, yet there is a concerted effort to deny it as even a possibility.
Why do many scientists and educators continue to make every effort to prove that Darwin
was correct? The fact is that most past scientific study has been done with the presupposition of
evolution and was bent on proving something that was flawed for the primary purpose of
providing an alternative to the teaching of a marvellously created universe. Humanism and
Darwinism can be considered the religion of the man-god.
TEXT 2
Another "pillar" in the dogma of American Evangelical Christianity is intelligent
design. The basic idea being that the increasing complexity in the machinery of life with
decreasing scale is a clear indication of an intelligent designer because "nature could not
have done it on her own". Said "intelligent designer" is of course a pseudonym for God
almighty himself.
The scientific method requires that all hypothesis are to be tested before they can
even be considered for adoption into man's scientific body of knowledge, and that a given
hypothesis must be tested (many, many times) before it is accepted as a theory with the
provision that even a single contradiction can overthrow the new theory at any time. The
prime utility of a scientific theory is its ability to accommodate a large body of scientific
evidence and to provide a means for making predictions in the acquisition of new
scientific knowledge.
Assuming that intelligent design is a valid theory, what scientific knowledge (other
than the continued affirmation of God's existence) does it accommodate? What
predictions does the intelligent design theory allow us to make. The answer to both
criteria is none.
The scientific theory of evolution has been proven to exist just as much as the theory
of gravity, theory of electromagnetism, and theory of germ disease. The evidence that
organic evolution has occurred is so overwhelming that no one who is acquainted with it
has any doubt that new species are derived from previous ones by descent with
modifications. The fossil record provides direct evidence of organic evolution and gives
the details of the evolutionary relationships of many lines of descent.
TEXT 3
If we are concerned with encouraging people to think for themselves, and creationism
and evolution are both theories, then there is no reason to with hold teaching both sides of
the debate. Let people decide for themselves. Parents fighting to keep creationism out of
schools because they are embarrassed or ashamed about their own relationship with God,
or lack an ability to express their side of the argument objectively, deny their child the
ability to make informed decisions.
I don't feel anyone must prove creationism to disprove evolution, or vice versa. If the
evolutionists or the creationists are waiting for this day, you are both out of luck. Both are
equally supported THEORIES....nothing more. A man cannot prove evolution, than he
can prove the existence of Santa, however history tells me Jesus Christ walked on this
earth...not because the Bible tells me so....but because MAN witnessed these events, and
famous historians have written about it for years!
KEY
Text 1 – in favour of creationism
language features
 Categorical modality (both positive and negative) e.g. does not abide, could not
have happened by chance, the fact is… ; high modality Intelligent Design" had to
be involved
 Use of negative valued words to refer to the theory of evolution, e.g. fails,
scientifically impossible (twice), slanted, that was flawed; use of positive words


(when referring to intelligent design) more rational evidence, a marvelously
created universe
Question-answer format (rhetorical questions used twice with answers given)
Direct address to the reader and use of inclusive we Preposterous, isn't it? Yet we
are....
Text 2 – against creationism, support of evolution






Word selection: "pillar" (in quotes ), dogma, pseudonym
Scientific vocabulary: scientific method, hypothesis, tested, scientific body of
knowledge, theory, scientific theory, a body of scientific evidence, predictions,
new scientific knowledge, evidence
Research verbs: requires, to be tested, proven
Cautious academic style: before they can even be considered for adoption, with
the provision that, to provide a means for making prediction
Question-answer format in the form of scientific enquiry
Use of categorical modality
Text 3 – neutral stance
 Use of if…. then…. clause twice
 Opposite words to create a kind of balance: prove-disprove
 Repetition of both: both sides of the debate, both, both are equally supported
theories
 Use of capital letters: THEORIES, MAN
 Use of personal pronouns to establish a personal style: if we are concerned, I
don’t feel, you are both out of luck