Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga

The Santorum Amendment is a specific amendment to a 2001 education funding bill proposed by Republican United States senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, which relates to the teaching of evolution in U.S. public schools.

The original amendment was phrased by UC Berkeley law professor and evolution opponent Phillip E. Johnson and reads:

“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 House 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 the theory of evolution exists, leading to a weakening of science curricula. A coalition of 80 scientific and educational organizations wrote a letter to this effect to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill, which it was.

The amendment did not become law, though a weakened version of it appears in the Congressional record as explanatory text about the legislative history and purposes of the bill:

“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"): 2001-107^th Congress-1^st Session-House of Representatives Report-107 334 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1)

It is an important sentence to be noted from above “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 the theory of evolution exists, leading to a weakening of science curricula.” Why we should fear to accept the truth if we consider ourselves as honest scientists and educators? After all, the real duty of honest scientists and educators is to propagate the truth and not the faulty theories to maintain their false position. Hence, honesty is an immediate requirement in modern educational system.

References