Last Thursday, an Oxford Debate was held in the Oak Room at East 22 Street. The topic of this debate was "The Students of Baruch College Believe Intelligent Design Should Be Taught in Public Schools." Richard Leung moderated to an audience of nearly one hundred. The Sigma Alpha Delta Honor Society, Phi Eta Sigma National Honor Society, and the Debate Team sponsored the event.
Leung explained that ID is the idea that the natural world is a product of intelligence and that there are flaws in the theories of evolution that make it inadequate to explain the origins of life.
The debate consisted of two students: Robert Benimoff, a senior and editor-in-chief of the yearbook, and sophomore Danielle Lemberg, president of the Debate Team, as well as two faculty members, Joel Brindi, natural sciences professor, and David Pereplyotchik, and adjunct philosophy professor. They are both graduates of NYU; Brindi earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry, physiology and immunology, while Pereplyotchik has a Bachelor's degree in philosophy. The two guest speakers were Howard Schott and Alan Brown.
Benimoff began the debate, with the motion that intelligent design should be taught in public schools. He started off by saying "we are not here to debate whether ID is scientific theory, but to debate the motion." He continued that teaching intelligent design, alongside evolution, would add to a student's understanding of scientific theory through competition. "A great champion needs a great competitor, not a straw-man, much less an uninspiring atmosphere with no stakes at all," he said.
Schott responded by saying that those who teach evolution will be likely to give a clear description of the working of the world. Intelligent design has no place in science because it cannot be supported by facts. Instead, it is better fitted in a philosophical environment. Science teachers in public schools have the freedom to explain things as it is, he noted, but students need to form their own rebuttal to rationally come to a reasonable conclusion.
Lemberg was the first speaker in opposition of intelligent design. She stressed that ID is based on beliefs, which have no ability to be researched and cannot be tested or observed. Therefore, ID cannot be considered a science. She mentioned that there were legal conditions, which must fit for anything to be called a science. She also stated that one could teach ID with evolution but not without religion; this is what causes the conflict.
Pereplyotchik shared similar views to Lemberg. He asked the questions: Is ID a scientific theory and should it be taught in a science course? In opposition to ID, he said that ID would never fit the criteria to become a science, set up by the Supreme Court. He argued that ID offers an explanation of creation but does not have a mechanism by which things were made.
The last speaker in favor of the opposition, Brown, informed that there are only 400 scientists out of 10 million who are in favor of this kind of creation.
The debate offered a much-needed insight into the issue of whether evolutionism and belief in God the creator should be imposed in high schools, a question which has been attracting a lot of media attention in the past couple weeks.
The students present were allowed to cast their vote by exiting through one of the two doors in the Oak Room - one representing "Yay" and the other "Nay. Students could abstain from voting by exiting through the front. The winner of the debate was "Yay" with 38 votes over "Nay," which had 23 votes.
Leung believes that "debate is a great place to exchange ideas. The diversity we've seen here tonight shows the necessity for this kind of debate and for us to listen to each other with an open mind."
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article!