A day before passing its version of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (H.R. 1), the Senate voted overwhelmingly (91-8) to approve a non-binding
"Sense of the Senate" amendment offered by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
regarding the teaching of biological evolution. The amendment was approved
on June 13 by all of the Democrats who were present and all but eight
of the Republicans present; those eight reportedly opposed it as inappropriate
federal intrusion into a local matter.
Many supporters probably agreed with Ted Kennedy (D-MA) when he stated
that the amendment "talks about using good science to consider the
teaching of biological evolution." However, it is worth noting reports
that proponents of intelligent design - the idea that the design of
the universe was guided by a higher intelligence - played a role in
helping Santorum craft the amendment language. Santorum, who is the
chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, quoted a well-known supporter
of intelligent design, David DeWolf, during his floor speech on the
amendment, and another intelligent design proponent, Phillip Johnson,
is quoted by the Washington Times as saying, "I offered some language
to Senator Santorum after he had decided to propose a resolution of
this sort."
The amendment states:
"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."
Senators Santorum, Kennedy, Robert Byrd (D-WV), and Sam Brownback
(R-KS) spoke about this amendment on the floor. Selections from their
remarks follow:
SANTORUM: "It is a sense of the Senate that deals with
the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of
science in the classroom.... It is a sense of the Senate that does not
try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there
should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the
classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there
is this intellectual freedom to discuss.... It simply says there are
disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually
tested. Our knowledge of science is not absolute, obviously. We continue
to test theories. Over the centuries, there were theories that were
once assumed to be true and have been proven, through further revelation
of scientific investigation and testing, to be not true.
"One of the things I thought was important in putting this forward
was to make sure the Senate of this country...was on record saying
we are for this kind of intellectual freedom; we are for this kind
of discussion going on; it will enhance the quality of science education
for our students.
"I will read three points made by one of the advocates of this
thought, a man named David DeWolf, as to the advantages of teaching
this controversy that exists. He says: Several benefits will accrue
from a more open discussion of biological origins in the science classroom.
First, this approach will do a better job of teaching the issue itself,
both because it presents more accurate information about the state
of scientific thinking and evidence, and because it presents the subject
in a more lively and less dogmatic way. Second, this approach gives
students greater appreciation for how science is actually practiced.
Science necessarily involves the interpretation of data; yet scientists
often disagree about how to interpret their data. By presenting this
scientific controversy realistically, students will learn how to evaluate
competing interpretations in light of evidence - a skill they will
need as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other
fields. Third, this approach will model for students how to address
differences of opinion through reasoned discussion within the context
of a pluralistic society.
"I think there are many benefits to this discussion that we hope
to encourage in science classrooms across this country. I frankly
don't see any down side to this discussion - that we are standing
here as the Senate in favor of intellectual freedom and open and fair
discussion of using science -not philosophy and religion within the
context...of science but science - as the basis for this determination."
KENNEDY: "[O]n the Santorum amendment, I hope all of our
colleagues will vote in support of it. It talks about using good science
to consider the teaching of biological evolution. I think the way the
Senator described it, as well as the language itself, is completely
consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We
want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories
on the basis of all of the information that is available to them so
they can talk about different concepts and do it intelligently with
the best information that is before them. I think the Senator [Santorum]
has expressed his views in support of the amendment and the reasons
for it. I think they make eminently good sense. I intend to support
that proposal."
BYRD: "I have been interested in the debate surrounding the
teaching of evolution in our schools. I think that Senator Santorum's
amendment will lead to a more thoughtful treatment of this topic in
the classroom. It is important that students be exposed not only to
the theory of evolution, but also to the context in which it is viewed
by many in our society."
"Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and
its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the
many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and
concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the
birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of
thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone
else's. That is the very point of this amendment - to support an airing
of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. If education is
truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying
viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience."
BROWNBACK: "I would like to take the opportunity of this amendment
to clear the record about the controversy in Kansas.... Here are the
facts about what happened in Kansas. The school board did not ban the
teaching of evolution. They did not forbid the mention of Darwin in
the classroom. They didn't even remove all mention of evolution from
the State assessment test. Rather, the school board voted against including
questions on macro- evolution - the theory that new species can evolve
from existing species over time - from the State assessment. The assessment
did include questions on micro-evolution - the observed change over
time within an existing species.
"Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro
and macro-evolution on the State exam?... In fact, their vote was
cast based on the most basic scientific principal that science is
about what we observe, not what we assume. The great and bold statement
that the Kansas School Board made was that simply that we observe
micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is
impossible to observe macro- evolution, it is scientific assumption.....
The actions and intentions of the school board were routinely misrepresented
in the global press. Many in the scientific community, who presumably
knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas....
For this reason, I am very pleased that my friend from Pennsylvania
offered this amendment. He clarifies the opinion of the Senate that
the debate of scientific fact versus scientific assumption is an important
debate to embrace."
The House version of ESEA does not include similar language. Differences
in the two versions of H.R. 1 will need to be worked out in a House-Senate
conference, which is expected after Members return from the July 4 recess,
which runs from July 2-6.
Audrey T. Leath
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3094
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl