[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 27982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 13, 2001

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address my colleagues 
regarding H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind.
  Although we passed this important legislation last week, I must 
express my reservations about certain language included in the 
conference report:


       The conferees recognize that a quality science education 
     should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable 
     theories of science from the 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.

  Outside of the scientific community, the word ``theory'' is used to 
refer to a speculation or guess that is based on limited information or 
knowledge. Among scientists, however, a theory is not a speculation or 
guess, but a logical explanation of a collection of experimental data. 
Thus, the theory of evolution is not controversial among scientists. It 
is an experimentally tested theory that is accepted by an overwhelming 
majority of scientists, both in the life sciences and the physical 
sciences.
  The implication in this language that there are other scientific 
alternatives to evolution represents a veiled attempt to introduce 
creationism--and, thus, religion--into our schools. Why else would the 
language be included at all? In fact, this objectionable language was 
written by proponents of an idea known as ``intelligent design.'' This 
concept, which could also be called ``stealth creationism'', suggests 
that the only plausible explanation for complex life forms is design by 
an intelligent agent. This concept is religion masquerading as science. 
Scientific concepts can be tested; intelligent design can never be 
tested. This is not science, and it should not be taught in our public 
schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a religious person. I take my religion seriously 
and feel it deeply. My point here is not to attack or diminish religion 
in any way. My point is to make clear that religion is not science and 
science is not religion. The language is this bill can result in 
diminishing both science and religion.

                          ____________________