The (9) implementation requirements of the Bill are rather stiff, and will meet immediate resistance, as in past lessor Bills. But for this Bill to have any chance whatsoever, some points within it conceptual context need be addressed. I suggest reading the Bill in its entirety, along with my ruminations.
house.mo.gov

• “Analogous naturalistic process” is defined correctly, if not always applied correctly, however. It is, in fact, the only way to empirically verify a proposed prior process which culminated in an evolved formation. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult within evolutionary theory.

• “Biological evolution” is also summarized relatively well by a 105 word paragraph.

• “Biological intelligent design”, correctly stated as “a hypothesis” rather than a theory, and correctly attributed to “intelligence” rather than the singular form “an intelligence”, but incorrectly connoted “by inference” as the source of “all original species on earth”. I feel that ID can be hypothesized at various junctures, but the presumption of ID as its sole source cannot be stated as fact. It further correctly states that intelligence identity is not required or allowed, short of “present-day” [empirical] observation.

It then goes on to define “concepts inherent within the hypothesis”, summarized by (9) arguments in its favor, and which are largely inferential, as are natural precepts. These then may not be presented as fact; only as ID inferences, and must therefore be presented as such, if included in the final Bill.

In particular, I take exception with, (f) “Intelligence-directed design and construction of all original species at inception without an accompanying genetic burden is inferred rather than random mutational genetic change as a constructive mechanism.”

With (h), “The irreducible complexity of certain biological systems implies a completed design and construction at inception rather than step-by-step development.”

And with (i), “The lack of significant transitional forms between diverse species existing today and in the fossil record implies all original species were completed at inception rather than by a step-by-step development from other species.”

The term ‘all’ cannot be presumed at this point, if ever. Nor can ‘step-by-step’ be ruled out, although at some point, certain steps [genetic/ phenotypic alterations] may in fact be confirmed as directed by intelligent input, at least in part.

And finally, (4) stating that “Destiny [and other a priori defined processes] may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs is incorrect; data only within science classes. Beliefs may ensue from the data, but NOT be considered as evidentiary within science. Rewording of (4) and (9) is essential IMO.

The term ‘empirical data’ appears (15) times, essentially to emphasize its relevance in assessing the data, rather than an over-use of extrapolation [non-verifiable and non-relevant parallels], and of assumptions [both of natural and guided causations]. ID’s support is largely based on statistical improbabilities of naturally occurring building-blocks of novelty and complexity with no immediate heritable advantages, rather than a goddidit presumption. Likewise, more than chance and environmental pressures being responsible for similar events, natural causation may require more than slight adaptive alterations to produce novelty and multi-dependent complexities.