Did Congress require Darwin-bashing in the public schools?
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.
I previously assumed that the above report does not have the effect of requiring the withholding of federal funds from states and school districts that do not teach criticisms of Darwinism, but I am now having second thoughts. A court ruling that this conference report has such an effect would be a far less generous application of that report than the Supreme Court's application of a Senate report in Blum v. Stenson! In Blum v. Stenson, that Senate report was the sole basis of the Supreme Court's ruling that plaintiffs' attorney fee awards in civil rights cases should not be reduced on the grounds that the legal representation is from a non-profit organization (and the ruling probably also applies to legal representation that is initially pro bono). But that ruling in Blum was not even based on anything that the Senate report itself expressly said but was based only on what was said in court cases cited by the report! (see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 892-895; the green numbers are the page numbers) LOL. That Senate report only expressly stated that the fee award should not be reduced on the grounds that a suit is non-pecuniary. In contrast to the Supreme Court's non-literal interpretation of the Senate report in Blum, the House-Senate conference report quotation above explicitly states that scientific criticisms of evolution should be taught in the public schools. Of course, it is now going to be argued that there are no scientific criticisms of evolution, but the report says that the schools have to find them. The two-faced Darwinists want it both ways -- they are of course happy with the very generous application of the Senate report in Blum because it increases their rip-offs of school boards in monkey trials, but they want non-application of the House-Senate conference report of the NCLBA.
I don't think I am being immodest when I say that I am a great unrecognized legal genius. My legal genius was also evident in my lawsuits against California's "smog impact fee," where I alone found solid grounds for suing in federal courts despite general rules against state-tax suits in federal courts. And I have not had a single day of formal legal training -- I am a self-taught legal genius. Judges, attorneys and other legal "experts" (e.g., Fatheaded Ed Brayton) are just jealous of me.
Maybe if I didn't get so much ridicule of my legal analyses, I would not be tooting my own horn.