Santorum Amendment
From Free net encyclopedia
The Santorum Amendment was an amendment to the 2001 education funding bill which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act, proposed by Republican United States Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, which promotes the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools. Though the amendment only survives in modified form in the Bill's Conference Report and does not carry the weight of law, it has become a cornerstone in the intelligent design movement's "Teach the Controversy" campaign.
The origin of the amendment can be traced back to 2000, when leading intelligent design (ID) proponents through the Discovery Institute held a congressional briefing in Washington, D.C., to promote their agenda to lawmakers. Sen. Rick Santorum was and continues to be one of ID's most vocal supporters on Capitol Hill. One result of this briefing was that Sen. Santorum inserted pro-ID language, crafted in part by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, into the No Child Left Behind bill calling for students to be taught why evolution "generates so much continuing controversy," an assertion heavily promoted by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank that functions primarily as the headquarters of the intelligent design movement.
Phillip E. Johnson, a UC Berkeley law professor, leading proponent of intelligent design, and founding advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, phrased the original amendment [1]. In its original form, the proposed amendment read:
"It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
On June 14, 2001, the amendment was passed as part of the H.R. 1 education funding bill by the Senate on a vote of 91-8. This was hailed as a major victory by creationists; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute contained the sentence "Undoubtedly this will change the face of the debate over the theories of evolution and intelligent design in America...It also seems that the Darwinian monopoly on public science education, and perhaps the biological sciences in general, is ending." Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas cited the amendment as vindicating the 1999 Kansas school board decision (since overturned) to eliminate evolution questions from state tests.
The Senate version of the bill H.R. 1 did not contain the amendment, which meant that a conference committee had to decide its ultimate fate.
Scientists and educators feared that by singling out biological evolution as very controversial, the amendment could create the impression that a substantial scientific controversy about evolution exists, leading to a lessening of academic rigor in science curricula. A coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations signed a letter to this effect to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill, which it was, but intelligent design supporters on the conference committee preserved it in the bill's legislative history.
While the amendment did not become law, a version of it appears in the Conference Report as an explanatory text about the legislative history and purposes of the bill. Such a report may be taken into account if courts later need to consider the intent of the bill, but it has no legal force per se. The final text of the Santorum Amendment as included in the Conference Report reads:
"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society." -- Congressional Conferees Language on Controversies Such as Evolution (Revised "Santorum Amendment"): 2001-107th Congress-1st Session-House of Representatives Report-107 334 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1
Despite the amendment lacking the weight of law, consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge strategy the amendment's inclusion in the conference report is constantly cited by the Discovery Institute and other ID supporters as providing federal sanction for intelligent design [2]. House Majority Leader John Boehner and Rep. Steve Chabot, both of Ohio, and Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, along with Santorum, have signed letters supporting the Discovery Institute's interpretation of the Santorum amendment. One of those letters was sent to the president and vice-president of the Ohio Board of Education; the other was sent to the Texas Board of Education, all of which were targets of the Discovery Institute in their program to advance the intelligent design movement.
During the 2003 Texas Board of Education controversy over the selection of Texas science textbooks, Santorum, with fellow ID advocates Representatives Judd Gregg and John Boehner wrote a letter to the Discovery Institute's Bruce Chapman, on congressional stationery, echoing the Discovery Institute's interpretation of the amendment. The letter designates Santorum as the amendment's author. But Phillip E. Johnson asserts in his 2002 book, The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning, and Public Debate, that he actually drafted the original amendment.
Contents |
Scientific community's response
The position of mainstream scientists and science educators has been that although evolution has generated a great deal of political and philosophical debate it is generally regarded by scientists as a valid and well-supported scientific theory. They argued that the amendment creates a misperception about the current status of the theory within the scientific community, either intentionally or unintentionally, and in so doing, furthers a specious justification being used to weaken science curricula. It was in response to these concerns and others that a coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations wrote a letter to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill. [3]
In addition, opponents of the amendment cite the stated agenda of the Discovery Institute's Phillip Johnson use of the "Wedge strategy" to "affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind"Template:Ref and thereby return religious creationism in the guise of intelligent design to public school classrooms.
See also
External links
Reference notes
- Template:Note "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the "wedge." Phillip E. Johnson. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. 1997. pp. 91-92