Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection

By Julia Gardiner

The University’s third annual Day of Dialogue kicked off Wednesday morning with an exchange of viewpoints regarding an issue that has been a hot-button topic recently.

Anthony Dardis, a professor of philosophy at University, contended there is presently no conclusive evidence to support either theories of intelligent design or natural selection. Given this uncertaintity, he also held that intelligent design should not be not be taught in schools.

Daniel Varisco, a professor of anthropology at the University, countered that intelligent design is a discredited theory while natural selection is a substantiated one.

Although students attending the discussion felt the debate was fair, some wished there was more time for discussion.

“They didn’t really go into anything in-depth because of time constraints, but both sides of the issue were explored,” freshman Linh Thoi, said.

Both speakers cited Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, whose belief in intelligent design sharply distinguishes him from his colleagues.

Audience members had the opportunity to comment and pose questions toward the end of the debate.

“The questions were good, but they were answered poorly,” freshman Tim Gann said. “It was interesting, but the two professors kept repeating themselves.”

One of the liveliest debates was sparked by J. Bret Bennington, a geology professor at the University, who speculated that if the question is whether intelligent design is science, the answer must be affirmative because it “forms a hypothesis that something cannot be explained,” which contradicts the essence of science itself.

The debate concluded with both speakers suggesting that the intelligent design/natural selection debate is one issue that may never be resolved.

State of the Democratic Party

By Brian Bohl

The University’s Day of Dialogue Wednesday featured a discussion on ways in which the Democratic party must change in order to regain a congressional majority.

Comprising the panel were Leslie Feldman, David Green and Rosanna Perotti of the University’s political science department.

With a second-term Republican serving as president, Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a potentially conservative Supreme Court, the Democratic Party has been regulated to minority status in all three branches of government, the speakers said.

Given President George Bush’s declining approval ratings and growing public criticism of the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina and opposition to the war in Iraq, the panel agreed that the Democratic party has an opportunity to reverse its fortune in upcoming elections.

“The president’s approval ratings are crashing into the mid-30 percentile,” Green said. “Only 28 percent of the country feels the country is heading in the right direction.”

From Ronald Regan to Bill Clinton, history has shown that the party of an incumbent president usually loses seats within six years of winning the second election. That marker will come during the 2006 midterm elections, which is also Democrats’ next major opportunity to shift their numbers in the Senate.

“The Republicans are going to have to keep their coalition together,” Feldman said. “I think the CIA leak is a lot like a Paula Jones lawsuit that damaged the Democrats.”

Possible remedies to restore Democratic prominence were also discussed, with all three professors agreeing that the party must present a better image of itself.

“Democrats need to regain their belief in themselves and their ideas and telegraph that leadership broadly,” Green said. “One FDR type could change the fortunes of the party single handedly. They need party discipline to make sure the party stands for something coherent and recognizable.”

A.J. Hall, sophomore broadcast journalism major, attended the lecture though he is a Republican.

“The lecture tried to point out the problems with where this nation is headed and what the Democratic party needs to do in order for them to pull out a victory in the 2008 presidential election,” he said.

Perotti said that the party should look back to the time of Franklin Roosevelt for inspiration on how to proceed forward.

“The Democrats should stick to the issues that were important during the New Deal Era, which are economic issues that really matter to the working class voters that have defected from the party since the 1960’s,” Perotti said.

Reaction to Hurricane Katrina

By Jason Cohen

Professionals from the fields of journalism and law discussed their perspectives on the federal and state response to Hurricane Katrina at a Day of Dialogue event the University held on Wednesday.

Andrew McCarthy, a government prosecutor, faulted all levels of government for inaction both in the days leading up to the category four hurricane and in its aftermath, classifying the relief effort as an “across the board failure.”

“We knew about Katrina days in advance, but didn’t do anything to prevent or to help people after it at all,” McCarthy said. “It was a confidence issue rather than political.”

Echoing the spate of criticism that has recently come upon the Federal Emergency Management Association, McCarthy faulted the organization for delivering insufficient aid. He also contended that the structure of the federal government contributed to FEMA’s impotency.

“It [FEMA] was swallowed up by Homeland Security and, because it became a small fish in a big pond, it became less resourceful,” McCarthy said.

Eric Alterman, a journalist, used similarly harsh words to describe the government’s reaction and contended that the government’s very design limits its ability to centralize authority during a disaster.

He also rebuked former FEMA Director Mike Brown for failing to release an alert memo or get airplanes to New Orleans even through Brown was aware of the impending storm five days before it hit.

“No provisions were made in advance and, if you were depending on the government or FEMA, you were out of luck,” Alterman said.

In assigning blame for FEMA’s failures, Alterman noted that the organization’s funding had been recently reduced in order to accommodate the war in Iraq and tax cuts.

“[President] Bush didn’t take FEMA seriously because he chose Mike Brown – a friend of his, someone who had no experience – to be the head of it,” Alterman said. “This administration has contempt for what the government does.”

When asked by a student whether Bush was aware that the storm would be so destructive, Alterman replied, “Bush had no conception of what was going on because he didn’t care.”

The Dixieland Jazz band performed a New Orleans style funeral procession during common hour to honor Katrina victims and survivors. (Harry Tanielyan/The Chronicle)