Read The School Board. In addition to their four main justifications, the creationists argue (correctly in this particular example) that creationism reflects a majority religious value of their particular local community. The evolutionists stick to the four main points and emphasize that abandoning the teaching of evolution in biology classes does violence to the scientific disciplines, regardless of community sentiment. No middle ground is possible. Moreover, only one position will be taught because fiscal constraints prevent teaching the opposing position in another part of the official curriculum.

Write a paper that weighs the arguments presented in The School Board with respect to the condition above and arrives at a reasoned decision.

Your correct application of critical thinking principles to the position you choose is far more important than the position itself. Therefore, research the issue and apply relevant principles to support your recommendation. Merely reciting the statements that already appear isn't the point. Rather, analyze which of the arguments are strongest, which are weakest, and compare/contrast them. Then go a step further and resolve the issue: What course of action should the School Board take? Remember: The first question to you is likely to be, "Why do you argue as you do? What reasons strong enough to sway skeptics support your statements?" Failure to have such reasons plainly evident will result in your recommendation being disregarded.

After you have accomplished your integrative task and have written your paper, please have someone else read it and consider the questions listed below.

• Have you addressed the question asked or have you wandered off onto something else?
• Is interest sparked and maintained throughout the discussion? At what point(s) does interest wane?
• Where do your arguments falter and become unclear?
• Are your arguments and language appropriate for the intended audience?
• Has meaningful and appropriate research been done? Are the presented facts beyond dispute? Are there some questions that still need to be answered?
• Are the sources incorporated smoothly and purposefully, or do quotations seem "tacked on"?
• Does the case analysis follow good critical thinking that is clear, logical, deep, broad, and discriminating? Does one point move smoothly to the next?
• Is the thesis insightful? Is it either too nebulous or too trivial?
• Does documentation follow a correct, clear format?
• Is the prose clear and engaging?
  ---after Carolyn Haynes, Miami University, Ohio

• Please limit yourself to four pages. In-text citations and complete bibliographic references are required for ideas not your own.
• Your audience for this paper is the citizenry of your town. Use vocabulary, syntax, and format suitable for communicating effectively to a general audience with little knowledge of science but lots of interest in the public education of their daughters and sons.
• Expectations and limits related to the mechanics of writing, proof reading, and editing, as outlined in the syllabus, are in effect.
• For this paper, please use a separate page for the title and your name. Staple; do not fold.

Main Learning Objective:
Can the student identify the core of a problem, construct and analyze viewpoints that may differ within disciplinary content and perspective as they apply to a real problem, subscribe to standards of validity corresponding to those viewpoints, decompose arguments into component parts, and communicate an understanding of how separate disciplinary standards contribute to resolving a complex issue?