For this course, we will be reading and discussing the chapters in the
Copeland text and perhaps other papers assigned from time to
time. For these assignments, you will be submitting a two-page
critical analysis of each reading. In these analyses, I want to
read your thoughts about the paper, not a summary of the paper. I
want you to read the paper and think about it critically. Did the
author state and then sufficiently establish his/her purposes?
Were there flaws in the reasoning or arguments? How could the
argument have been strengthened.
After thinking, write a short analysis that communicates your
critique. You have a maximum
of two pages at 1.5 line spacing. I am looking for careful
thought, as well as good
writing. Please take time to revise and polish your text.
You will be graded on the quality of your prose and the depth and
insightfulness of your thoughts. To help give an idea of what I'm
expecting, I have written an analysis
of the Dembski article that we read last week. Please note,
it is not what I consider a great effort. On reflection, I would
grade it as an 8 out of 10 (or perhaps 8.5 if I was generous).
One problem is that the text is not sufficiently polished, but the
larger problem is that I did not take the time to craft my points in a
coherent critique; if I had spent 10 to 15 minutes on an outline before
starting to write, I might have given myself a 9 or 9.5 with otherwise
the same amount of time invested in actual writing.