Very brief update & a question

The City Weekly has responded to Buttars anti-evolution Bill again with their usual candor.

… Senate Bill 96, which although only a few short sentences, would dramatically alter the state’s science curriculum. It would require that educators, when presenting any theory on the origins of life must stress that there is no consensus on the theory’s validity.

CW gets some commentary on the Bill from Larry Madden, a representative for the Utah Science Teachers Association, “This whole thing is just ridiculous”.

Amen.

Before I let you go, I have a few questions for you. Just how “dramatically” do you think this Bill will really alter the state’s science curriculum? What will the actual effect be? Especially considering there are so many science teachers like Larry Madden who think the Bill is ridiculous? Or do they think it’s ridiculous? The Pandas Thumb mentions a situation developing in Ohio in a blog post:

Already there are rumors that some creationist teachers are going beyond the ID-based lesson plan to “supplement” it with more blatantly creationist material, with the excuse that “the state board says it’s OK”.

If this Bill passes, would it have the same effect, to encourage certain teachers to “supplement” current materials?