By Senator Rick Santorum
Congressional Record
January 31, 2002


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


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.


Statement by Senator Santorum Upon the Passage of the Education Act 2001:
Congressional Record: December 18, 2001 (Senate) Page S13365-S13422


Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am very gratified that the House and Senate
conferees included in the conference report of the elementary and secondary
education bill the language of a resolution I introduced during the earlier
Senate debate. That resolution concerned the teaching of controversies in
science. It was adopted 91-8 by the Senate. By passing it we were showing our
desire that students studying controversial issues in science, such as
biological evolution, should be allowed to learn about competing scientific
interpretations of evidence. As a result of our vote today that position is
about to become a position of the Congress as a whole.

When the Senate bill was first under discussion in this body, I referenced an
excellent Utah Law Review article, Volume 2000, Number 1, by David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest. The authors demonstrate that teachers have a constitutional right to teach, and students to learn, about scientific controversies, so long as the discussion is about science, not
religion or philosophy. As the education bill report language makes clear, it is
not proper in the science classrooms of our public schools to teach either
religion or philosophy. But also, it says, just because some think that
contending scientific theories may have implications for religion or philosophy,
that is no reason to ignore or trivialize the scientific issues embodied in
those theories. After all, there are enormous religious and philosophical
questions implied by much of what science does, especially these days. Thus, it
is entirely appropriate that the scientific evidence behind them is examined in
science classrooms. Efforts to shut down scientific debates, as such, only serve
to thwart the true purposes of education, science and law. There is a question
here of academic freedom, freedom to learn, as well as to teach. The debate over
origins is an excellent example. Just as has happened in other subjects in the
history of science, a number of scholars are now raising scientific challenges
to the usual Darwinian account of the origins of life. Some scholars have
proposed such alternative theories as intelligent design. In the Utah law review
article the authors state, ". . . The time has come for school boards to resist
threats of litigation from those who would censor teachers, who teach the
scientific controversy over origins, and to defend their efforts to expand
student access to evidence and information about this timely and compelling
controversy."

The public supports the position we are taking today. For instance, national
opinion surveys showto use the origins issue againthat Americans
overwhelmingly desire to have students learn the scientific arguments against,
as well as for, Darwin's theory. A recent Zogby International poll shows the
preference on this as 71 percent to 15 percent, with 14 percent undecided. The
goal is academic excellence, not dogmatism. It is most timely, and gratifying,
that Congress is acknowledging and supporting this objective.

Speech of Honorable Thomas E. Petri of Wisconsin in the House of
Representatives.
Thursday, December 13, 2001
Page E2330

Additionally, this conference report makes a strong statement that, where
Darwinian evolutionary theory or other controversial scientific topics are
taught, students should be exposed to multiple viewpoints. Too often, students
are taught only one theory where evolution is concerned, and this language gives
support to those at the local and state level who uphold the value of
intellectual freedom in the teaching of science. This statement is especially
important to make now because H.R.1 requires all students eventually to be
tested in science on a regular basis as a condition of aid.