Guys, I’m thoroughly opposed to the evil machinations of the Deception Institute (check my comment history if you don’t believe me!), but I’m looking at this wording:

[a] thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

… and I see they had to change it that way to have any hope of getting it passed, and I sort of think it might be, you know, ok.

I know what he intends to do with this bill - “teach both sides” - but that wording, to me, says; “teach evolution thoroughly and show all the evidence (which points cagetorically to it being an observed fact).”

Critical analysis does not mean “argue that it is wrong without giving any evidence” - it means look at the evidence. Right?

I think he would have to go one further, get yet another bill signed into law, to have “intelligent design” - or whatever new doublethink name they want to give it - into the classroom, because, well, ID or creationism is simply not an aspect of evolution science, or part of a scientific criticism of it.

Or am I wrong?

BiJ