Intelligent Design Thread

I want to thank those who attended the most recent meeting, and especially those who commented on my last post, for your consideration of my debate topic suggestion. I agree that Intelligent Design is an excellent topic, and also favor it to The Rise of China for our inaugural debate. I thought I would do us all a favor and start a thread with the aim of firming up the wording of the resolved, the parameters of the debate, and potential speakers, etc. As I am wont to do, I'll start with a few notes of my own on the comments thus far.

-A Note on Parameters: I'd suggest a more subtle approach to the framing of the debate. While we don't want (as some have already said) to descend into pure abstraction in debating the place of Intelligent Design, I would reject the suggestion that the debate be confined to the issue of "academic freedom", or to realm of the Establishment Clause. To do this is to suggest that Intelligent Design qua concept is itself politico-ethically and metaphysically inert (yes, I said it), and that what is at issue is more or less whether one set of ideologues (who support it) should get their way over another set of ideologues (who oppose it) according to some constitutional/legal principles and/or the precepts of sound public policy. In other words, by confining the debate to the "should it be taught" question, we may only manage to avoid "talking points"-style debate at the cost of making the debate about whether a certain set of "talking points" (Intelligent Design) should be included in Alabama text books. That is, we may end up with a very well-reasoned and objective discourse on a very ill-defined, partisan and subjective topic.

We should not give the impression that this issue can be decided on purely pragmatic grounds, or by analogy to other (for example) 1st Amendment, States' Rights, etc. issues. Rather, the concept of Intelligent Design needs to be unpacked, as its particular merits (or lack thereof) are specifically relevent not only to the public policy question, but to cultural questions on the role and future of secularism, scientific questions on the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, and philosophical questions about the status of scientific versus non-scientific knowledge, to name a few. Thus should we encourage discussion and debate on at least the following points.


-'theory' in the vernacular versus 'Theory' in science (the special status of scientific theory)
- Is Intelligent Design a "Scientific Theory" (Does it explain the data? Is it predictive? Is it testable? Are these appropriate criteria for determining the validity of a theory?)
-What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism?
-If Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory in the normal sense of that term, should it be taught in science classes? If not in science classes, should it be taught as an alternative to science?
- What worldview does Darwinism presuppose? What worldview does it encourage? (Does Darwinism entail atheism?) What does it explain? What CAN'T it explain?
-"Scientific" versus "Non-Scientific" knowledge. Does the deductive-nomological/empirical model of the physical sciences determine all there is to "know" about the universe? Is scientific knowledge privileged over other kinds of knowledge (a priori, intuitive, revelatory, 'post-modern')? SHOULD it be so privileged?
-Does Intelligent Design Presuppose an Abrahamic (Judeo-Christian/Muslim) God? Does its truth demand of us a particular set of ethical/religious/political beliefs?
-What is the evidence for the existence of a Diety? Diesm versus Theism. Deism versus Fideism (the separation of revelatory and scientific knowledge). Are there "Dual Truths" (God's and Science's)?
-If Intelligent Design does NOT presuppose or entail an Abrahamic God, should its potential inclusion in school curricula be an Establishment Clause or Academic Freedom issue?
-Even if ID does NOT entail an Abrahamic God, does its teaching nevertheless further the cause of the Abrahamic religions? Should this be impeded?


A Note on the Resolved: In the spirit of asking broad and far-reaching questions, we need to word the resolved carefully. Suggestions:

"This Society Believes that Evolutionary Theory Underdetermines Fact"

"This Society Believes Intelligent Design Deserves Consideration"

"This Society Believes that Science and Religion are Irreconciliable"

"This Society Believes in God and in Evolution" (particularly 'oooh'-inspiring)

"This Society Believes that Intelligent Design is Bad Science"

(OR, again more controversial,)

"This Society Believes that Intelligent Design is Bad Science...[But Good Philosophy, But a Good Idea, But Probably True, But a Good Bet]"

"This Society Believes in the Design of Natural Selection"

etc. I have no doubt there are better ideas out there. I'm just trying to give a flavor here of the kind of statements we should be shooting for.


A Note on Speakers: Some people we might invite:

John Haught
Harold Morowitz
Paul Gross

These three are somewhat sympathetic to Intelligent Design. Critics will be easier to find and probably we can get GW profs. More suggestions to follow. As for now, I've got a train to catch.

Best,

Suggestion in absentia for First Debate Topic

Since I will likely not be at the 4th meeting, I wanted to take a second to propose a topic for our first debate. The resolved would read:

"This Society Believes that a Preventive War can be a Just War..."

I should be forthcoming and admit that this is a topic I have worked a great deal on both at my internship and as part of a Rice Fellowship project through GW. But this shouldn't deter us from seeing its great merits. This resolved manages to interface both with a pressing normative issue in foreign policy/international affairs (the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of preemption laid out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States), and with a philosophical tradition dating back to Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (the venerable "Just War Theory" which aims to spell out the moral and political preconditions for justly making war). Another way to frame this is to say the debate is about the merits of Neoconservatism in American foreign policy (as it is opposed by, on the one hand political realism and liberal internationalism, and on the other hand isolationism). Still another way of framing this debate is to say it is about the right to act unilaterally on ostensibly moral imperatives versus the need to obey international "law" or at least international norms (namely via engagement with the UN). So, alternate resolves (and perhaps friendlier to non-philosophy majors) would be:

"This Society Believes that Neoconservatism is an Ideology whose Time has Come..."

or, to frame it negatively,

"This Society Believes that Political Realism (and Liberal Internationalism) are Obsolete..."

To follow the third framing, it might read:

"This Society Believes that UN Resolutions Ought not Guide U.S. Foreign Policy..."

Regardless of the exact wording, note the tendentiousness of this resolved, that is, its ability to inspire spirited support AND opposition. It is important to have this kind of resolved, one which makes a partisan claim but in the spirit of sparking discourse rather than giving a forum for chin-stroking, which resolutions like "This Society Believes Virtue is Glorious" or "This Society Believes Vice is Ignoble" would no doubt do.

As to potential speakers in proposition and opposition, I have come up with a few ideas.

VERY AMBITIOUS IDEAS:
-Charles Krauthammer
-Francis Fukuyama
-Zbigniew Brzezinski
-Ruth Wedgwood

SOMEWHAT AMBITIOUS IDEAS:
-Fouad Ajami
-Anthony Clark Arend
-Esther Brimmer
-Eliot Cohen
-Charles Fairbanks
-Michael Hudson
-Robert Leiber
-Michael Mandelbaum
-Gerald Mara
-Casimir Yost


LESS AMBITIOUS IDEAS:
-Daniel Byman
-Daniel Brumberg
-John Langan
-Marilyn McMorrow
-Richard Russell

The above are almost entirely SAIS and Walsh School people. Potential speakers from our own department include Deborah D. Avant, James H. Lebovic, Martha Finnemore, James Goldgeier, Henry Nau, Bernard Reich, Dean Michael Brown, Karl Inderfurth, Walter Reich, Merve Kavakci, Nathan Brown, George Moose, Ralph Steinhardt, Dane Kennedy, Andrew Zimmerman, Gordon Adams, Allida Black, M.E. Bowman, Jack Mendelsohn, Charles Cushman, George Fidas, Kim Thackuk, Ronald Spector, Robert Churchill, Stiv Fleishman, Jeffrey Brand-Ballard, David DeGrazia, John Rudisill, and Peter Caws, among, believe it or not, OTHERS.

I'm working on more ideas from outside of academia. Also, it might be a nice gesture to extend an invitation to a member of the Philodemic Society at Georgetown (I know, this name has hitherto gone unspoken) to speak at our debate. If not the Philodemic, then perhaps one of their other intellectual groups- the Edmund Burke society comes to mind.

Elsewise, let me know what you think (if you get to the end of this) and check out my comments in response to Brandon's last post.

Best,

Two or Three Cents from the New Guy

Hello all,

I have read over much of the e-mail and blog discussion and look forward to contributing in person to the reorganization come the end of August. As for now, I thought I'd comment on a few things, with particular emphasis on the extent to which we'd like the Society to look like the Oxford Union, of which Neil, myself (and soon Aaron) are members.

-On a pure practical note, I'd like to contribute to the constitution-drafting process with Siddons. I sat on the Rules Committee of the SA and later as an enforcer of obscure charter-regulations on the JEC, so I'd like to put my knowledge of bureaucratic and legalistic minutae to good use.

-A note on dues: If it counts for anything, I'd say we make the initial membership dues somewhat substantial, something in the $35-55 region, and supplement that with small annual dues for non-matriculated alumni (5 or 10 bucks). We might also think about two different rates for first-time members and nth-year members (who are still matriculated).

-A note on sponsorship: A good deal of our event expenses can be offset by seeking co-sponsorship. The most obvious source, of course, is the SA, but I think we should minimize our links with them--it seems to me a kind of organizational incest. That is, we'd like to run our society both parallel to but in some sense ABOVE the existing political organizations on campus. So my thinking extends to the CRs and CDs (unless of course we can secure the co-sponsorship of both for a single event). But there are a number of less political and apolitical organizations on campus which are potential sources of cosponsorship. The IA Society is a good start, so too is the Philosophy Club, which has good ties with the faculty and already holds a series of fora and an annual conference on matters of philosophical interest (better to join them than to cannibalize each other). We should come up with a list of potential cosponsors. Of course, the hope is that once the Society establishes itself, outside sponsorship of events becomes an option.

-A note on goods and services for members: I think that if we want to foster a kind of spirit of community and brother/sisterhood in the Society, we ought to provide some goods and services to our members—some perhaps included with dues and others at a modest charge. I can’t say that I have any particularly good ideas on this front, because we can’t open a bar and don’t have a permanent base of operations to do much selling of anything else, but it nevertheless seems an important thing to think about. Anyone have any creative ideas? Periodic dinner/meetings at the University Club, perhaps? Poker tournaments seem to work well for the Marvin Center, as well they did for the Oxford Union last year.

-A final note: The 3rd meeting summary mentions potential support for some form of “inner circle” as well as a manner of “rank” among debaters, with frequently contributing members enjoying a sort of favoritism. Let me say that I think this is probably not the best way to do things. It seems to me that the idea ought to be to encourage participation from outsiders and newcomers as much or more than we award ourselves as “members of rank”. First, an alternative, and then, a philosophical explanation: Alternatively we might ask members in good standing to give scheduled remarks to introduce a given topic on either side of the issue, and then open the floor to extemporaneous debate, with no particular favor given to rank or “innerness”. Optionally, we might also schedule members to give closing remarks at the end of floor debate (this is how the Union does it). This allows for widespread participation while still vesting those close to the Society with the power to frame the issues and contextualize the debate. As for the philosophical explanation, I should say that it pleases me to hear among the chatter of the group concerns about arrogance, elitism, snobbery and the like. These are VERY REAL CONCERNS, as we here at GW are by nature a political bunch and prone to posturing and grandstanding. Allowing even a bit of that spirit to creep into the Society will surely sound its death knell before it’s even off the ground, and relegate it to a life like 95% of GW student orgs: self-congratulatory, ineffectual and lame. I have no problem with elitism, in fact I think it’s a very good thing indeed. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that privilege is ours because we wrote it into the bylaws. In other words, let the elite form as a matter of substance, not a matter of procedure. Let quality of intellect and rightness of action do the talking--legislating our way into status and favor will just ring hollow and turn us into a slightly less relevant and slightly better-dressed SA, that much is certain.

Well, now that I've run through my ideas like a bull in a china shop, I'll be off.

In Earnest,

Dan Foster

Meeting with Alumni House

For some reason it looks as though there was a glitch with my last post, so I apologize for the confusion, and will repost with timely additions to my comments.

Jaime, myself, and possibly Bevin will meet with two people in Alumni House this week. It looks like the meeting will not take place until after our meeting on Thursday, allowing us to brainstorm before the meeting.

In making the arrangements, Joe Bondi would like to meet twice-- once this week and again later in August, in preparation for the school year. His original message to me voiced enthusiasm for the opportunity for Enosinian as a catalyst for Alumni to become involved in GW. We'll see how it goes.

If you have any ideas regarding the extent to which Alumni should be involved, or have any issues you would like for us to discuss on Friday, please either let us know in the meeting, or if you're not in DC, post them as comments to this note.

Erin