Thursday, February 02, 2006

Boehner Wins Leadership Position

Ohio rperesentative John Boehner has won the election to replace Tom DeLay as the House Majority Leader.

Boehner will be familiar to readers of this blog for his attempts to pressure the Ohio Board of Education into including ID in its science classes:


We are writing to comment on recent Ohio School Board hearings regarding the teaching of science in Ohio public schools in light of some recent developments in federal education policy. As you know on January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001. During the debate concerning H. R. 1, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced an amendment, regarding teaching controversial elements of scientific theory. The Santorum amendment passed the Seante by a vote of 98 to 1 and was included as report language in the final version of H. R. 1, which was signed by the president. Specifically, the H.R. 1 Conference Report states:

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should
Prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of
science from the 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.

Thus, the Santorum language is now part of the law. The Santorum language clarifies that public school students are entitled to learn that thee are differing scientific views on issues such as biological evolution.

H.R. 1 calls for the enactment of state standards in the field of science. It’s important that the implementation of these science standards not be used to censor debate on controversial issues in science, including Darwin’s theory of evolution. Science is neither religion nor philosophy. Many people may draw religious or philosophical implications from science, but those implication are best drawn outside the science classroom. Students should be allowed to hear the scientific arguments on more than one side of a controversial topic. Censorship of opposing points of view retards true scholarship and prevents students from developing their critical thinking skills.

The text of Santorum language in the H.R. 1 Conference Report and comments from members of House and Senate are enclosed for your background information. We hope this information will be of help to you in your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Rep. John A. Boehner Rep. Steve Chabot
Chairman, House Education Chairman, House
And Workforce Committee Constitution Subcommittee


Tell me again about how the Republicans aren't the anti-science party.

6 Comments:

At 6:41 PM, Anonymous John M said...

Once again we have "teach the controversy" plug.

It is legitimate to teach students to the extent appropriate about legitimate scientific controverseries. An example could be whether there is life on others planents somewhere in the universe.

But when a religious dogma should not be taught either as science, or as a question about some part of science.

 
At 1:16 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

"a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from the religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science."

That's good, because it means ID can be used to illustrate what is NOT science.

"the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views"

And this is good because there's only one scientific view anyway: evolution. ID has been proven to be not scientific. So it should NOT be taught.

"students are entitled to learn that there are differing scientific views on issues such as biological evolution"

Right, and just as soon as there are differing scientific views I'm all for informing students about them. But at the moment, there aren't.

 
At 6:17 AM, Anonymous Jaime Headden said...

Fortunately, as fred said, the differing scientific theories on evolution will dismiss ID from the school boards nonetheless. Bush and Santorum [uneducated] opinions on the matter aside.

 
At 12:50 PM, Blogger Mevolution said...

re: controversies about biological evolution...
There are plenty, such as the role of sexual selection v. natural selection or the role of co-operation as an evolutionary force.

 
At 3:20 PM, Blogger les said...

"Thus, the Santorum language is now part of the law. The Santorum language clarifies that public school students are entitled to learn that thee are differing scientific views on issues such as biological evolution."

And that's a flat lie. The amendment was not included in the conference bill, and only shows up in committee reports that track the process.

 
At 6:55 AM, Blogger Andrew Purvis said...

What we have hear, dear friends, is the debate not between evolution and pseudo-science with the gross taint of religion, but the fight between these two camps:

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!

and

Let 'em all die naturally; evolution's done the work.

The great part about this is that both allow for the presence of God, but the former camp must, if it wins, accept evolutionary theory in comparitive religion classes if it wins. Let 'em suck on THAT for a while.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home