Acceptance of Science Bill [Failed]

[Ebowed]

Acceptance of Science Bill

Section 1: Abstinence
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any sex education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as true or scientifically legitimate:
1.) the process of terminating a pregnancy is sinful, wrong, or murderous.
2.) the trait of homosexuality or bisexuality is an entirely conscious choice and/or is strange, unnatural, or sinful.
3.) the participation in homosexual sex acts is sinful, wrong, or unnatural.
4.) the proper use of contraceptive devices including but not limited to condoms is grossly ineffective in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections.
5.) engaging in sexual activity before marriage with proper precautions is immoral, dangerous, or sinful.
6.) males and females should limit themselves to careers which have historically been associated with masculine and feminine roles, respectively.

Section 2: Biology
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as true or scientifically legitimate:
1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity.
2.) fossil evidence for biological macroevolution is largely inaccurate or misinterpreted by mainstream scientists, or presents a picture that contradicts with biological evolutionary theory.
3.) radioactive carbon dating is always inaccurate or scientifically unreliable.
4.) the age of the earth is less than ten thousand years.
5.) the origins of the universe and of life on earth are scientifically explained by religious texts or creeds.
6.) the complexity of certain types of life on earth are of such a magnitude that they present valid evidence for that of a higher power or "intelligent designer."
7.) the trait of homosexual behavior does not exist within the animal kingdom outside of humans.
8.) creation theories are valid within the scientific method.
9.) the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the Big Bang.


Sponsor: The President pro tempore

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I propose that sections 1 and 2 be amended to replace "true or scientifically legitimate" with "based on scientific evidence".  A number of these topics are touched upon in some religious beliefs and I want to avoid any implication that the government of Atlasia is determining the correctness of any religious belief.

[Brandon H]

I offer an amendment that Section 1 be removed from this bill.

[Ebowed]

I propose that sections 1 and 2 be amended to replace "true or scientifically legitimate" with "based on scientific evidence".  A number of these topics are touched upon in some religious beliefs and I want to avoid any implication that the government of Atlasia is determining the correctness of any religious belief.

That seems fair enough.

I offer an amendment that Section 1 be removed from this bill.

Why?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I propose an amendment to strike the whole bill and replace it with:

Section 1:
Evolution and Creationism should be taught side by side

[Brandon H]

I offer an amendment that Section 1 be removed from this bill.

Why?

I guess I should have just offered an amendment to replace the bill with something completely different (Hint), or maybe saying organization will only be included rather than excluded based on the above circumstances.

For the Senators that are actually interested, while abstinence only education does have it short comings, this bill would stop any program from letting young people know that there possible consequences of their actions.

Or given the budget deficit we are in, maybe replace the entire bill with "No education curriculum will receive any federal funding." However, I still with the original amendment.
---

I propose an amendment to strike the whole bill and replace it with:

Section 1:
Evolution and Creationism should be taught side by side

I would include Intelligent Design in there as well.

[Ebowed]

We are voting on the proposal that '...that sections 1 and 2 be amended to replace "true or scientifically legitimate" with "based on scientific evidence"


Aye

[Colin]

Nay

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye.  It's a minor but important distinction.

[minionofmidas]

Aye.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Aye

[Јas]

Aye

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye

[John Dibble]

1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity.

I think you might want to change this - technically biological evolution is different from theories such as gravity or relativity since it's a different theory. I get your meaning though. I suggest "biological evolution is not a valid scientific theory." or something like that, just to make the meaning clear.

I propose an amendment to strike the whole bill and replace it with:

Section 1:
Evolution and Creationism should be taught side by side

Which creationism? There's lots of different creation stories, so which ones should we teach?

[Gabu]

1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity.

I think you might want to change this - technically biological evolution is different from theories such as gravity or relativity since it's a different theory. I get your meaning though. I suggest "biological evolution is not a valid scientific theory." or something like that, just to make the meaning clear.

Nobody's saying that it's not a valid theory.  The main assertion is that its being a theory implies a lesser likelihood of it being false.  I'd make it something like "the idea that biological evolution's status as a scientific theory implies that it is any less likely to be true than other scientific ideas".

[DownWithTheLeft]

I propose an amendment to strike the whole bill and replace it with:

Section 1:
Evolution and Creationism should be taught side by side

Which creationism? There's lots of different creation stories, so which ones should we teach?

I don't expect it to pass I was just throwing it out there after what Proce did to Brandon on the other bill.

[Ebowed]

The amendment passes.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This bill clearly is intended as a shot against religion.  Evolutionists are afraid if people get all the knowledge about all theories, that there crap shoot will go out the window.  Why do you oppose letting children get all the facts?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This bill clearly is intended as a shot against religion.  Evolutionists are afraid if people get all the knowledge about all theories, that there crap shoot will go out the window.  Why do you oppose letting children get all the facts?

Because there are no facts backing up creationism.

[Ebowed]

We're voting on an amendment to remove Section 1 from the bill.


Nay, abstinence-only education is dangerous.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Aye, I don't support more children out of wedlock

[Brandon H]

Aye, this bill would teach that one need not worry about the possible consequences when engaging in sexual activity.

[Colin]

Nay

Abstinence only education does nothing more than lead to more unwanted pregnancies and more transmission of STDs. You can't stop kids from having sex but you can show them a way to do it safely. I have nothing wrong with teaching abstinence alongside safe sex measures but not abstinence-only.

[Brandon H]

Nay

Abstinence only education does nothing more than lead to more unwanted pregnancies and more transmission of STDs. You can't stop kids from having sex but you can show them a way to do it safely. I have nothing wrong with teaching abstinence alongside safe sex measures but not abstinence-only.

This bill seems like it would place some limits on teaching abstinence at all, whether it be alone or with safe sex info.

[Colin]

Nay

Abstinence only education does nothing more than lead to more unwanted pregnancies and more transmission of STDs. You can't stop kids from having sex but you can show them a way to do it safely. I have nothing wrong with teaching abstinence alongside safe sex measures but not abstinence-only.

This bill seems like it would place some limits on teaching abstinence at all, whether it be alone or with safe sex info.

No it doesn't not at all it makes sure that religious dogma and fundamentalist beliefs are kept out of federally funded abstinence education programs.