A motion for a motion...

Last Thursday, Sigma Alpha Delta held an Oxford debate to discuss the motion: "The Students of Baruch College Believe Intelligent Design Should be Taught in Public Schools!" Oxford debates take controversial topics from the sphere of public discussion and present them to an audience of university students, faculty and guests. At the conclusion of the debate, the audience is asked to evaluate the arguments and to vote for or against the motion.

Unfortunately, Thursday's motion was flawed. The motion before Baruch's students was not the topic being discussed in America's courts and legislatures. A topical motion would ask whether we believe ID should be taught as science in public schools. The difference is small, but it is significant.

The proponents in Thursday's debate took two tracks. Robert Benimoff and Howard Schott argued ID is not science but that it should be taught in public schools as philosophy. As their opponents, and some in the audience (including myself), pointed out, while that is within the scope of the debate's motion, no one was suggesting this. The politicians, scientists and others who have publicly advocated ID are not suggesting it is philosophy; they are suggesting it is science. For Benimoff and Schott to argue otherwise was pure sophistry.

Was sophistry the purpose of this debate? Was the audience to judge the motion based on the public speakers' skill as rhetoricians? Or, was the purpose to have a meaningful discussion about an important issue? I believe the purpose was the latter. The motion failed to do this. Instead of stimulating important debate, it was an exercise in verbal gymnastics. The sponsors invested the time to plan and host this event; the six speakers invested time preparing; the audience took time out of their busy schedules to attend this event; all that sacrifice for a circus. We deserved more. We deserved a topical debate.

The third proponent of ID, Joel Brindi, took the time to argue for teaching ID as a science. He addressed a valid issue despite the spurious currents of this debate. The opponents of ID also addressed this issue. But, was the audience of the debate the proper jury for this question? Is the American public the proper jury for this question?

The opponents of ID explained that the Supreme Court has ruled against the public as a jury on these questions. The proper jury is the scientific community. Was Brindi's argument scientifically convincing? I do not know. I agree with the Supreme Court; I am not qualified to judge the argument, nor do I think that the audience was qualified either. Brindi and other proponents of ID should present this theory to the scientific community.

I salute Sigma Alpha Delta for attempting to stage a challenging debate, but the motion was flawed. At the end of Thursday's Oxford debate I chose to abstain from voting on the motion. The real question in this debate should be who decides what is science. The answer is the scientific community, not the public.