Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
The Santorum Amendment, which was passed by the Senate and preserved in the Conference Committee report of the "No Child Left Behind" bill, gives federal legislative weight to the idea that alternatives to evolution should be taught in science classes.
Source
- Santorum, Rick, 2002 (March 14) Washington Times.
Responses
- Since the Santorum Amendment is not, in fact, part of Federal law, this claim is simply wrong.
- Legislative support does not imply that a theory has scientific merit.
- Legislative support does not imply that teaching non-scientific ideas in science classes is in fact ethical.
- Because ID is not a valid theory, even if legislation did support the teaching of alternate theories, ID is not one of them.
- The clause to teach alternatives may be present in the act but this does not mean that to do so would be constitutional.
- Lex malla, lex nulla. Article VI of the US Constitution prevents such a stipulation from being legal. Even a constitutional amendment cannot contradict non-repealed portions of the constitution.
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Sweeping Generalization (the recommendation should be followed though it was removed)
- Appeal to Authority (Santorum is the authority)
External Links
- Mark Isaak's page for this claim [1]
- Hirsch, Dennis D., n.d. The Santorum Amendment. [2]
- Wikipedia entry for The Santorum Amendment [3]
- Miller, Kenneth R., 2002. The Truth about the "Santorum Amendment" Language on Evolution. [4]
Further Reading
- Branch, G. and Scott, E, 2003 (Mar.). The antievolution law that wasn't. The American Biology Teacher 65(3): 165-166.
Related claims
- Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time
- Teach the controversy
- Biology can reasonably be taught without evolution
- Intelligent design theory is scientific
