Talk:Santorum Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
What does the amendment say? Is the quote given identical to the original amendment, or is it a watered down conference statement? It doesn't seem to have any content. At the very least, I would want to know on which side of the creationism/evolution debate it belongs. AxelBoldt
Contents |
[edit] Johnson as author
What is the basis for saying Johnson was the author? This may be true, but I would like to know the source. Thanks. --VorpalBlade 14:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I know he helped draft the language, though the authorship may be shared with Santorum lackeys. A lexus-nexus search of articles from that time will show that. Joshuaschroeder 16:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- What is the basis for saying Johnson isn't a creationist? As defined on that wikipedia page he sure is one. Joshuaschroeder 16:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The two definitions at dictionary.com show:
cre·a·tion·ism n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible
creationism
n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
I think this is the most common meaning, and it doesn't apply to Johnson. By your definition, 90% of Americans are Creationists.
Just out of curiousity, what have you read by him? --VorpalBlade 18:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have read Defeating Darwinism for one, which is basically anti-evolution in its endeavor and at the time of its publishing there really was no "Intelligent Design" reworking yet available. I've also read at least half a dozen articles by the man. He is definitely a lawyer and not a scientist (he has a hard time grappling with very basic scientific concepts in some of his books), but his goal is to influence the public sphere and not the scientific one and to that end he is a success in his own way.
Just because the dictionary defines creationism narrowly doesn't mean an encyclopedia should have such a narrow definition. Both creationists and non-creationists editting the page on creationism agree on the broader definition. Since the wikilink is to that article, if people are curious they can read why Johnson is considered a creationist by the broad standard. I wouldn't describe Johnson as a Young earth creationist, though as an article a few months back in Christianity Today pointed out, he does make arguments that are very sympathetic to them. He isn't as "old Earth" as many of the others in the ID movement. These all amount to nitpicking in areas that aren't really required for the nitpicking, and so if you want to include them here, that might be okay, but it would probably be better to include them on his wikipedia page. Joshuaschroeder 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- The real question is not "is it technically accurate?" The real question should be "what is the most accurate, and least misleading, way to describe his books?" I think mine is better. Do you think mine is inaccurate?
-
- The book you read is a simple book intended for high school students and college freshman. You should read Darwin on Trial and his other serious works. --VorpalBlade 14:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I read parts of Darwin on Trial -- the parts about science any way. I think the current description is okay, though we may have to change it a bit to keep the thing NPOV. Joshuaschroeder 14:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I can live with that, I think. Maybe we should break it into two sentences. --VorpalBlade 16:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History
-
- The Senate version of the bill H.R. 1 did not contain the amendment, which meant that a conference committee had to decide its ultimate fate.
Isn't the Senate version where Senator Santorum put in his amendment? Should that say that it was the House's version that didn't contain the amendment? I'm confuzled... 208.247.73.130 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change
I changed "This was hailed as a major victory by creationists; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute..." to "This was hailed as a major victory by proponents of intelligent design and creationists; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute..." Creationism and intelligent design are different, and the Discovery Institute does not support creationism; it supports intelligent design. Therefore, by adding "proponents of intelligent design," it then makes sense to mention the Discovery Institute in the next part of the sentence.
- Thanks. ID is a form of creationism though, both academically and legally. FeloniousMonk 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
added recent electoral results donalrobertsoniii 01:51, 10 November 2006.
[edit] General accuracy -- Santorum resolution, not amendment
This entire article needs checking for general accuracy.
1. The amendment was not proposed as a "sense of the Senate" resolution originally -- so the "sense of the Senate" language is in error if it's to show what was originally proposed. My understanding is that the original proposal was to make this law, and binding. That is not shown.
2. To be accurate, the article should note that as an amendment, it was rejected. What passed was the "Santorum Sense of the Senate Resolution," which was not an amendment to the proposed law.
3. Chief sponsor of the NCLB legislation, Sen. Ted Kennedy, would not allow the amendment. The backup position was a scripted colloquy between Kennedy and Santorum (probably available from the Congressional Record at the Library of Congress's Thomas site) in which the issue was discussed, and the amendment was downgraded to a non-binding, not-attached-to-the-bill Sense of the Senate Resolution. In that form, it passed.
4. The "amendment" was never an amendment, and no conference committee had to decide its fate. A sense of the house resolution does not go to conference committee. This is a fundamental error in congressional procedure, and the description as it stands marks this article as written by unknowing amateurs, or partisans. See comments under #2 above -- the Santorum Amendment died. What passed was a Sense of the Senate Resolution, which is non-binding.
5. To maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, stunts like listing the Discovery Institute as "The Congressional Record" in references to the main article should be stopped. The reference should be to the Discovery Institute. The language of the resolution, and the amendment before it, is probably available from the Congressional Record on-line version -- any link that purports to be to the Congressional Record should be to the Congressional Record, and not to a partisan organization that is not a part of Congress.Edarrell 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
