Santorum amendment

From: Ted Davis (
Date: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 13:13:07 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Fw: Re: Divine vs creaturely action"

    I echo George Murphy's concerns about how this amendment *will* be
    interpreted, vs how it *should* be interpreted. I strongly support what the
    amendment acually says about teaching this subject, and strongly wish that
    schools at all levels will talk seriously about religion and science, taking
    both seriously and not dismissing the importance or thoughtfulness of
    either. I might have written such an amendment myself, frankly, in language
    close to this.

    I fear that most people, however, will see this as promoting creationism in
    some form. Ironically, IMO creationists (no less than secular
    evolutionists) fail to take religion seriously; ie, they fail to engage the
    major religious questions raised by evolution, and dismiss as irreligious
    most (if not all) attempts to do so.

    Hence the amendment has my guarded support.

    Ted Davis

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 13:13:32 EDT