As members of the Philosophy Department, we are writing in response to two speakers invited by our colleague and friend, Dr. Stephen Dilley, this past academic year.

Dr. Dilley invited debaters Dr. Joel Velasco and Dr. Paul Nelson to campus last October to discuss the theory of common ancestry, or “the view that all of life on Earth descended from a single organism that lived long ago” (Hilltop Views “Evolution debate persists despite objections from science professors, Dean” on 10/24/16). More recently, he invited Dr. Richard Weikart to campus in April to discuss the contention that many “secular philosophies and ideologies have promoted the idea that humans are nothing more than machines or animals with no intrinsic purpose or value, which has led to the easy acceptance of abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and, in some cases, mass murder” (Hilltop Views “’From Darwin to Hitler’ author delivers talk organized by Philosophy Chair” on 04/19/17).

While these debaters and speakers offered reasons for these views, we strongly but respectfully disagree with their positions.

Contrary to Dr. Nelson’s view presented last November, we affirm the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that the case for common ancestry (as a part of evolutionary theory) has been established by all valid and reliable evidence.

We also have significant reservations about Dr. Weikart’s contention that that there is a strong causal relation between the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment secular philosophies referenced in his talk and the rise, justification, and “easy acceptance” of everything from infanticide to mass murder. On the contrary, we believe there are other, more complex psychological, economic, political, cultural, and historical reasons which better explain why anyone is led to such an “easy acceptance.”

Nonetheless, given our respectful disagreement and serious reservations about the positions raised by Dr. Dilley’s invited speakers, we think the best way to assess such views is to rigorously challenge them in a civil and civic public forum. We stand for the proposition that informed and intelligent discussion and debate is the best way to determine the strongest, most consistent positions on questions that may not always lead to universally accepted answers. We believe this is an important task for a liberal arts university like St. Edward’s, committed as it is to the civil and robust exploration of such questions, wherever that search will lead — even if that means vigorously disagreeing with a colleague and friend like Dr. Dilley in the Op-Ed pages of the Hilltop Views.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Greene, Associate Professor of Philosophy

Jack Musselman, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director, Center for Ethics and Leadership

Danney Ursery, Professor of Philosophy

Peter Wake, Associate Professor of Philosophy