Non-Sense of the Senate (U.S.)?

Mary Barkworth Mary at BIOLOGY.USU.EDU
Sat Jun 16 16:46:09 CDT 2001

The point, however, is that there are many controversial subjects. For
instance, whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component; the time
when humans first invaded North America; global warming; the value of
maintaining diversity; the importance of stabilizing or reducing the number
of humans in the world. I am sure that physicists, chemists, geologists, and
other -ists could come up with many other controversial subjects.  It is
only evolution that is mentioned in the law.  

I am also curious as to whether education comes under the heading of "a
necessary service" or "stuff relevant to international responsibilities" -
but I do not think the discussion is relevant to TAXACOM.       

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Gatrelle [mailto:gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Non-Sense of the Senate (U.S.)?

>From Rev. Ron Gatrelle
    I have mixed feelings on this. My most concrete view is that I do not
like to see government get involved with much of anything other than
providing  necessary services and "stuff" relative to international
responsibilities. In other words - keep out of our business. I am a strong
supported of the seperaton of church and state. I distance my self as far
as possible from the politically religious.
     I am not a "liberal" theologian. I would fit into the evangelical,
fundamental and worst yet- Pentecostal group. Though I also distance myself
as far as possible from the preacher crooks on TV and hyper-faith-bless ME
     I have also written a number of taxonomic evolutionary papers. I
certainly support hearing and teaching all sides of an "issue". Those who
fear letting the other side(s) have a shot at the ear are losers already in
my book. Truth is never to be feared - though it is often hard to
determine. Which is why we need as much information as we can get. Thus, my
fear is that this might be a precursor to stymieing either - evolutionism
or creationism - "thought". I want both positions presented and let the
listener make up his/her own mind.
    I sense no desire for censorship in Peter's post, just a desire to keep
the playing field level. I totally agree. Let's not weight this (especially
not have government weight it) for either side.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Rauch" <peterr at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 1:26 AM
Subject: Non-Sense of the Senate (U.S.)?

> [cross-posted from:]
> >>> Posting number 5347, dated 15 Jun 2001 14:37:21
> Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
>          <ECOLOG-L at UMDD.UMD.EDU>
> From:    Karen Claxon <kclaxon at EARTHLINK.NET>
> Subject: Fw: US Senate Passes Antievolution Resolution
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan felps" <edrioasteroid at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:16 PM
> Subject: US Senate Passes Antievolution Resolution
> See the National Center for Science Education -
> for updates. Innocuous, yes, but this
> shows how much influence the creationists have over science
> education.
> Sincerely,
> Dan Phelps
> Senate Passes Antievolution Resolution
>     by NCSE Staff
>     On June 13, 2001, the US Senate voted a "sense of the
> senate" resolution to the Elementary and Secondary Education
> Act, S1, currently under consideration. The resolution
> (Amendment #358)read,
>     "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 the subject generates so
> much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to
> be informed participants in public discussions regarding the
> subject."
>     The amendment was made by Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania.
>     Although the resolution appears innocuous, it is telling
> that only evolution is singled out from all possible
> controversial issues. If the goal of the resolution were to
> encourage discussion of the social dimensions of scientific
> issues, or critical thinking, or some other secular purpose, the
> resolution would have read,
>     "when controversial issues are taught, the curriculum should
> help students to understand why the subjects generate so much
> continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be
> informed participants in public discussions regarding the
> subjects."
>     The fact that evolution is singled out from all
> controversial issues belies the bill's origin. It is doubtless
> no accident that Senator Santorum cited Intelligent Design
> proponent David DeWolf in presenting his resolution.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list