Yeah that's my point, that this definition would not prevent useful and theories like Newton's Law or evolution from being taught to highschoolers. By the time

Yeah that's my point, that this definition would not prevent useful and theories like Newton's Law or evolution from being taught to highschoolers. By the time you get to reasonable (non-crackpot) scientific theories to teach that do not fall into repeatable and observable definitions (e.g., string theory), you're far beyond high school. It's not like they'll be missing out on vital science education because they're not being taught those theories. And there doesn't seem to be anything against teaching the scientific method or the the existence of superseded, unproven, disproven, etc., theories. I'm not saying anything about the motives, politicking, or wording in the bill, and I'm no expert in how the legal system could interpret it. Just saying, from a layperson's reading and assuming good faith (which is obviously never a good idea when dealing with a politician), it doesn't look like a horrible bill. And I am inviting people who know more about law or the local courts and politics etc to shoot down those assumptions, I wasn't trying to state it as a fact of how the law would play out if passed, although my comment might have been a little strong in giving that impression.