Back in 2001, Santorum was a Senator from Pennsylvania. He was a leading proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism and he proposed an amendment to a major education bill that was being considered by the United States Senate.1 The original Santorum Amendment was described by Santorum in a brief speech ...
This is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss. I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences—frankly, two rather innocuous sentences—that hopefully this Senate will embrace: "It is the sense of the Senate that—The original amendment was drafted by Philip Johnson in consultation with other fellows of the Discovery Institute.
(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 this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.
This amendment did not make it into law but a similar version was included in something called a "Conference Report" where it is often cited by Intelligent Design Creationists.
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.Taken at face value, these statements seem to provide an excellent opportunity for science teachers to explain how religion distorts science. They would provide legal justification for teachers who want to describe how religious views conflict with science and why scientific facts, such as evolution, generate so much controversy among religious Americans.
But that's not how the amendments are interpreted by most people. Here's Rick Santorum explaining in 2009 what the amendment really meant. It's clear that many Senators, including Ted Kennedy, were duped.
1. In American legislatures, it's normal that completely irrelevant material is inserted into bills.
