Re: Santorum Amendment

From: John Solum (jsolum@umich.edu)
Date: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 08:53:32 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Santorum Amendment"

    Hello everyone,

    I sent this message to another mailing list I read and I think all of you
    may be interested.

    thanks,

    John

    This amendment is currently one of the discussion topics at a message board
    I read, and one of the posters provided some interesting comments by
    senators who spoke in favor of it, which I've posted at the end of this
    message. I think the comments by Senator Brownback of Kansas are
    particularly interesting.
    The text of the discussion is in the Congressional Record Vol. 147 No. 82,
    pp. S6147-S6153. You can download this from the Government Printing Office
    at this URL:

    http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces190.html

    Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 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.

    I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to
    avoid controversy
    and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to
    debate different viewpoints
    and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for
    civil discourse
    beyond the schoolhouse doors?

    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.

    Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as my friend from Pennsylvania, and perhaps
    every one
    in the free world, knows the issue he brings up with regard to how to teach
    scientific theory
    and philosophy was recently an issue in my home State of Kansas. For this
    reason, many of
    my constituents are particularly sensitive to this issue.
    I would like to take the opportunity of this amendment to clear the record
    about the
    controversy in Kansas.

    In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard 'round
    the world. Press
    reports began to surface that evolution would not longer be taught. The
    specter of a
    theocratic school board entering the class to ensure that no student would
    be taught the
    prevailing wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and
    editorials were drafted by
    the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that the teachers would be
    charged with
    sorting through their student's texts with an Exacto knife carving out
    pictures of Darwin.
    However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case was not quite
    accurate. 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? How would that serve the theocratic school board's purpose
    that we read so
    much about? Well, the truth is . . . their was no theocratic end to the
    actions of the school
    board. 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 response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move by the
    Kansas school
    board was shocking. The actions and intentions of the school board were
    routinely
    misrepresented in the global press. Many in the global scientific
    community, who presumably
    knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas.
    College admissions
    boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students. The
    State Chamber
    of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities were threatened based
    on the actions of
    school board. All of these effects caused by a school board trying to
    decipher between
    scientific fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of
    the board, appeared
    to many as a response to the commission of heresy.
    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. I plan to support
    the amendment
    and urge my colleagues to join me.

    Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the two
    votes, prior to the
    second vote in order, there be 2 minutes on each side for debate.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    [Page: S6153]
    Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield back the remainder of his time?

    Mr. SANTORUM. I do.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 799.
    The yeas
    and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
    The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

    Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. DODD) is
    necessarily
    absent.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. CANTWELL). Are there any other Senators in the
    Chamber desiring to vote?
    The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:
    [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

    YEAS--91
    Akaka
    Allard
    Allen
    Baucus
    Bayh
    Bennett
    Biden
    Bingaman
    Bond
    Boxer
    Breaux
    Brownback
    Bunning
    Burns
    Byrd
    Campbell
    Cantwell
    Carnahan
    Carper
    Cleland
    Clinton
    Conrad
    Corzine
    Craig
    Crapo
    Daschle
    Dayton
    Domenici
    Dorgan
    Durbin
    Edwards
    Ensign
    Feingold
    Feinstein
    Fitzgerald
    Frist
    Graham
    Gramm
    Grassley
    Gregg
    Harkin
    Hatch
    Helms
    Hollings
    Hutchinson
    Hutchison
    Inhofe
    Inouye
    Jeffords
    Johnson
    Kennedy
    Kerry
    Kohl
    Kyl
    Landrieu
    Leahy
    Levin
    Lieberman
    Lincoln
    Lott
    Lugar
    McCain
    McConnell
    Mikulski
    Miller
    Murkowski
    Murray
    Nelson (FL)
    Nelson (NE)
    Nickles
    Reed
    Reid
    Roberts
    Rockefeller
    Santorum
    Sarbanes
    Schumer
    Sessions
    Shelby
    Smith (NH)
    Smith (OR)
    Snowe
    Specter
    Stabenow
    Thomas
    Thurmond
    Torricelli
    Voinovich
    Warner
    Wellstone
    NAYS--8
    Chafee
    Cochran
    Collins
    DeWine
    Enzi
    Hagel
    Stevens
    Thompson
    NOT VOTING--1
    Dodd



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 08:54:11 EDT