NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Right to Learn about Evolution"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #101
Proposed by: Allech-Atreus

Description: UN Resolution #101: Right to Learn about Evolution (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: DECLARING that it is not the purpose of this repeal to debate evolutionary theory,

OBSERVING that scientific and educational freedom is already guaranteed by such resolutions as "Freedom of Scientific Research" and "UN Educational Aid Act;"

APPRECIATING that many nations do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, whether for religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons;

BELIEVING that "Right to Learn About Evolution" is unnecessarily biased in favor of the theory of evolution, and that such arguments as "God being so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years" are in poor form and unneeded;

AFFIRMING the right of nations to have control over their own educational systems;

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #101, "Right to Learn About Evolution."

I was poking through the resolutions on the NSwiki site, trying to get some inspiration for legislation, and I came across #101 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=100). I read it and immediately thought to repeal it. So, here we are.

In my view, the arguments made by #101 are biased against the beliefs and cultural views of individual nations. It is also very well known that many NS nations are not human, with very specific creation stories, scientific or not.

As well, the arguments specifically referring to god, and a specific number of people, are in poor form for legislation of the United Nations and should not be kept on the rolls any longer. This legislation is also made redundant by "Freedom of Scientific Research" and "UN Educational Aid Act."

There you have it, my first proposal.

As long as we're on a repeal kick, this one's a good one to take off as well. It's awfully specific, and frankly a proposal that simply requires the availability of science education would be better.

APPRECIATING that many nations do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, whether for religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons;

Religious reasons:
Please forgive me, but I personnaly don't understand how a religion can seriously have a pb with evolution. How does the theory of evolution may change something in the attitude of humans about love and compassion or even about god!
It seems to me that the more a religion is about love and compassion, or the less a religion is "materialistic", the less it has a problem with science theories.

scientific reasons:
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, if you have knowledge of any other "scientific" theory on this topic, i will be gratefull to you to let me know. thanks.

cultural, or historic reasons:
What about heliocentrism?

As this proposal deal with science, here is where human science is at the beginning of the XXi century on this topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2124354.stm

Religious reasons:
Please forgive me, but I personnaly don't understand how a religion can seriously have a pb with evolution. How does the theory of evolution may change something in the attitude of humans about love and compassion or even about god!
It seems to me that the more a religion is about love and compassion, or the less a religion is "materialistic", the less it has a problem with science theories.

scientific reasons:
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, if you have knowledge of any other "scientific" theory on this topic, i will be gratefull to you to let me know. thanks.

cultural, or historic reasons:
What about heliocentrism?

As this proposal deal with science, here is where human science is at the beginning of the XXi century on this topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2124354.stm

I am not questioning the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. Read the first clause. I specifically did not want to get into a debate about the validity of the theory of evolution.

That said, this IS the NationStates world. We have nations full of zombies, a nation of genetically engineered wolf-men, dragons, and talking doplhins. The theory of evolution could really only apply to certain human nations in the context of the NS world.

I will state this again: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION. THIS IS ABOUT REPEALING A BAD RESOLUTION.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Abmassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

I will state this again: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT EVOLUTION. THIS IS ABOUT REPEALING A BAD RESOLUTION.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Abmassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda


So then you may consider to remove the following i suppose:

APPRECIATING that many nations do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, whether for religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons;

So then you may consider to remove the following i suppose:

No, I won't. That clause states the appreciation of individual nation's rights and histories. It doesn't question the validity of the theory of evolution, but rather states that many nations don't accept evolution for whatever reason.

Don't misrepresent the issue, as you are already doing. This is about repealing a resolution that is redundant, infringes on national rights, and makes fallacious arguments.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

but rather states that many nations don't accept evolution for whatever reason.

You state religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons in your proposal:

APPRECIATING that many nations do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, whether for religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons;

In my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11747311&postcount=3), please forgive me if I was not pretty clear:
I was just asking you what are those religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons you are APPRECIATING?

What are the problems of religions with evolution you are appreciating?
What are those scientific reasons against evolution you are appreciating?
Why does cultural and historical reasons matter so much when dealing with science theories?

Do you know what appreciating means? Words in English have more than one definition, you know. It's not "appreciation" as in "Music Appreciation 101."

You state religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons in your proposal:



In my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11747311&postcount=3), please forgive me if I was not pretty clear:
I was just asking you what are those religious, scientific, cultural, or historic reasons you are APPRECIATING?

What are the problems of religions with evolution you are appreciating?
What are those scientific reasons against evolution you are appreciating?
Why does cultural and historical reasons matter so much when dealing with science theories?

There are myriad reasons. The Wolf Guardians were genetically engineered, and did not evolve. Why should children in the country of the Wolf Guardians be forced to learn about evolution, when it does not apply to them?

In the "Ban Necrophilia" thread, several nations stated that they were composed of zombies. Without speculating too much about the zombie education system, I would gather that they don't much care about evolution.

Similarly, some religions in Allech-Atreus hold that all humans were created by a mysterious creator, who transported them from the dimension of wind and ghosts.

My point is that this is the NationStates world, where the laws of physics, gravity, and common sense don't apply in some places. To enshrine a reference to the mysterious "Real World" (wherever that is) reflects poorly on the UN at large.

Did I answer your question? Or should I reference something RL?

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

Do you know what appreciating means? Words in English have more than one definition, you know. It's not "appreciation" as in "Music Appreciation 101."

Thanks I understand that appreciating can have several meaning.

but in any case, but for every meaning, as the author make reference to some reasons, it will be pretty interesting for this assembly to know those reasons.

There are myriad reasons. The Wolf Guardians were genetically engineered, and did not evolve. Why should children in the country of the Wolf Guardians be forced to learn about evolution, when it does not apply to them?

This is indeed good roleplay, I like it. But maybe the Wolf Guardians will be interested to understand how some creatures evolved to then be able to master genetic engineering and then create them in second place?

In the "Ban Necrophilia" thread, several nations stated that they were composed of zombies. Without speculating too much about the zombie education system, I would gather that they don't much care about evolution.

It seems to me that zombies may be "immortal" but are not "eternal" and as for Wolf Guardians, they may be interested about where they come from.

Similarly, some religions in Allech-Atreus hold that all humans were created by a mysterious creator, who transported them from the dimension of wind and ghosts.

Is this what religion is about? Do we, the United Nations really want to reduce religions to this so materialistic level?

My point is that this is the NationStates world, where the laws of physics, gravity, and common sense don't apply in some places. To enshrine a reference to the mysterious "Real World" (wherever that is) reflects poorly on the UN at large.

Did I answer your question? Or should I reference something RL?

Thanks for your answer, but in fantasy:
-economical laws may be different, inflation may not matter and we will began to pass resolution which extravagent financial costs,
or
-natural environments may be so inteligently designed that polution don't affect them as nature auto-repair itself
and so on....

I really think it's pretty dangerous to begin to exclude "reason" from UN legislature.

This is indeed good roleplay, I like it. But maybe the Wolf Guardians will be interested to understand how some creatures evolved to then be able to master genetic engineering and then create them in second place?

They might be interested in it, but they shouldn't be forced to learn about it if they don't want to.



It seems to me that zombies may be "immortal" but are not "eternal" and as for Wolf Guardians, they may be interested about where they come from.

Again, they might be interested, but they shouldn't be forced to either teach or learn it.


Is this what religion is about? Do we, the United Nations really want to reduce religions to this so materialistic level?

What are you on about? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.


Thanks for your answer, but in fantasy:
-economical laws may be different, inflation may not matter and we will began to pass resolution which extravagent financial costs,
or
-natural environments may be so inteligently designed that polution don't affect them as nature auto-repair itself
and so on....

I really think it's pretty dangerous to begin to exclude "reason" from UN legislature.

What's your point? I wrote this repeal because #101 infringes upon the national right to determine what to teach your children.

Thanks I understand that appreciating can have several meaning.

but in any case, but for every meaning, as the author make reference to some reasons, it will be pretty interesting for this assembly to know those reasons.OK, I'll try again. He's not lending credence to any of these "moral or religious whatever" reasons; he's simply stating that the UN recognizes that different cultures have different reasons for rejecting evolution.

OK, I'll try again. He's not lending credence to any of these "moral or religious whatever" reasons; he's simply stating that the UN recognizes that different cultures have different reasons for rejecting evolution.

Yes, exactly.

I don't know what to think about this proposal. I do beleive that people should be taught scientific facts, and the most commonly accepted/likley theories, but at the same time their religious beleifs have to be respected. I would support this repeal as #101 isn't a terribly good resolution, but on the issue as a whole i find myself searching for some foggy middle ground.

I think that this is a useless proposition, as the resolution that would be repealed is titled "Right to Learn about Evolution". This does not mean that the nations HAVE to teach evolution, but people can learn about it if they so wish.

The original resolution states:


CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

[...]

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;


In other words, nobody is forcing anything upon anyone. Also, the original resolution does not forbid the teaching of other "theories" in parallel.

We therefore see no reason to repeal resolution #101.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites gladly supports this repeal as we fail to see why what our nation's educational system teaches is any on the UN's business.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Do you know what appreciating means? Words in English have more than one definition, you know. It's not "appreciation" as in "Music Appreciation 101."

I think that English isn't his first language...

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites gladly supports this repeal as we fail to see why what our nation's educational system teaches is any on the UN's business.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The nation of the St Edmundan Antarctic will also support this repeal, on the same basis, although most of the schools in our country do include evolution in whatever biology courses (of an appropriate level for this) they teach.

They might be interested in it, but they shouldn't be forced to learn about it if they don't want to.

Again, they might be interested, but they shouldn't be forced to either teach or learn it.

As it has been said in this thread, I think it's important to appreciate that resolution #101 "Right to Learn about Evolution" doesn't force them to learn it. #101 "Right to Learn about Evolution" is Natsov friendly.

As the text of the original resolution had not been posted in this thread yet, here it is:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=100

UN Resolution #101
Right to Learn about Evolution

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.



What are you on about? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

It was an answer to your sentence:

Similarly, some religions in Allech-Atreus hold that all humans were created by a mysterious creator, who transported them from the dimension of wind and ghosts.


If some religion hold that the earth is the center of the universe, shall we also stop to learn heliocentrism in the solar system?

Do you think that religions are stuff trying to make its believers false scientific facts? It seems to me that it's pretty insulting for religions to consider them as such instead of considering them trying to spread love and compassion and others values.


What's your point? I wrote this repeal because #101 infringes upon the national right to determine what to teach your children.

No #101 is pretty natsov friendly, as the only thing it mandates is:

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.


What I was saying was an answer to your comment:

My point is that this is the NationStates world, where the laws of physics, gravity, and common sense don't apply in some places. To enshrine a reference to the mysterious "Real World" (wherever that is) reflects poorly on the UN at large.

And I just emitted a warning that if we begin to legislate without applying physics, gravity or economical or environmental reason, it will be very dangerous for the UN. And my examples were that without respecting economical or environmental constraint, we will began to legislate totally incoherent resolutions.

As it has been said in this thread, I think it's important to appreciate that resolution #101 "Right to Learn about Evolution" doesn't force them to learn it. #101 "Right to Learn about Evolution" is Natsov friendly.

As the text of the original resolution had not been posted in this thread yet, here it is:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=100

yeah, I already linked to the resolution in the original post.





If some religion hold that the earth is the center of the universe, shall we also stop to learn heliocentrism in the solar system?

Only if that nation wishes to teach about heliocentrism.

Do you think that religions are stuff trying to make its believers false scientific facts? It seems to me that it's pretty insulting for religions to consider them as such instead of considering them trying to spread love and compassion and others values.

What are you on about? The Priest of Husmangaiyu in Allech-Atreus spread love, it's part of the sexual aspect of their mystery. My point is that some nations and religions have differing ideas about how their nation and people came to exist, and some nations very clearly don't have origins based around the theory of evolution. If I state, in specific terms, that ALL of the people in Allech-Atreus were created when a temporal space rift dropped them, naked and screaming, onto a bunch of planet, and said that it was incontrovertible fact that the people of Allech-Atreus had been created this way, what would you say?


Also, in response to the other comments:

The main argument against #101 is it's tacit support of the theory of evolution. I am a reasonable, educated man, and personally I believe the theory. However, my main point of contention is the unmitigated support for an unproven hypothesis shown in the resolution is both in poor taste and offensive.

The precedent set by this legislation is a very alarming one. I could, using #101 as a starting point, legislate such proposals as "Right to Learn About Creationism," "Right to Learn About Theosophy," and "Right to Learn About Bigfoot." This resolution's precendent allows any unproven theory to be given unlimited credence within the halls of the UN, as long as it is plausibly written.

This resolution is unnecessary and unwanted.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

I commend the timely arguments presented by the representatives of Love and esterel and Ariddia. Resolution #101 is a shining example of the UN at its best. It is a beacon that shines from happier times, when the UN was a progressive, assertive organ devoted to improving the lot of the citizens of its member states. Yes, some weak resolutions arose from this period, but this is emphatically not one of them.

Dashanzi will vociferously oppose any attempts to repeal this resolution.

Benedictions,

Resolution #101 is a shining example of the UN at its best.
Interesting to note how the Anticapitalist Alliance are so unnerved by resolutions promoting free trade that they submit knee-jerk illegal sovereignty acts and yammer on about national self-determination, yet the moment we get to education - necessarily a much more intranational concern - this disappears into an endorsement of progressive policies. If their voting policy is in fact "if we agree with it, fuck everyone else; if not, then waaah you stepped on my sovereignty", they should at least have the balls to admit it.

Resolution #101 is roundly crap. It interferes in a national area of policy, it violates the separation of church and UN by assuming a benevolent singular deity, and it resorts to an excessively specific area of policy. Let's have one for gravity too, or for the laws of thermodynamics. I mean, come on, we're asking that people learn about evolution, computers, and clitoral stimulation, and nowhere in the UN's history of education resolutions has the idea that people should be taught to count to ten even been mentioned.

It needs to be repealed - though I admit I think the "APPRECIATING" line should be struck, and the repeal should focus more on the idea that specific theories aren't suitable for generalised international legislation - if only to wipe the smug grins off some of these peeps' faces.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Ambassador Pyandran's hyperbole is most entertaining, though I fear his ire is based on an erroneous foundation. I speak in my capacity as a representative of Dashanzi, not the ACA (whose views on this issue - assuming there is a regional consensus, as you seem to - are unknown to me). For clarity, let me confirm that Dashanzi does not support the proposal in question (submitted by the people of Zphd).

Let me also counter the suggestion that resolution #101 assumes "a benevolent singular deity". "If" is an important qualifier in said resolution. It is largely a rhetorical device. I admire the author's offbeat manner, as it happens.

Benedictions,

Ambassador Pyandran's
I'm not the Ambassador.

For clarity, let me confirm that Dashanzi does not support the proposal in question (submitted by the people of Zphd).
Shh, I'm casting generalised slurs.

Let me also counter the suggestion that resolution #101 assumes "a benevolent singular deity". "If" is an important qualifier in said resolution. It is largely a rhetorical device. I admire the author's offbeat manner, as it happens.
The word "if" doesn't appear once in Resolution #101. I have no earthly fucking clue what point you are thereby making.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

I'm not the Ambassador.
Good heavens, I've done it again! My apologies, sir.

The word "if" doesn't appear once in Resolution #101. I have no earthly fucking clue what point you are thereby making.
Oh, this is most embarrassing. You are indeed correct and my comment is withdrawn. Having read through the offending clause in question, I find the phrasing quite refreshing (though the dating is erroneous).

I still oppose repeal.

In support of a repeal for reasons that even we think are odd.

Kivisto is not a religious nation. We firmly believe that Evolution is more than a theory, it is a fact. However, we also believe that it is possible that we are wrong. It might be that there are nations that have already scientifically proven evolution to be a monstrous joke. They aren't speaking up because they are laughing at us too hard to draw enough breath to form words. The proposal in question guarantees their students the right to learn erroneous information. What the hell would be the point of that? The educational facilities in these nations should be allowed to strike these misguided notions from their textbooks. No, the resolution doesn't force anyone to teach or learn anything. But why should the information even be available, if it turns out to be false. I'm no Wenaist, but maybe the Gruenbergers are right and evolution is a crock. If such is the case, why waste the paper and ink and resources making the information available?

Welp, unless it picks up 76 more approvals in the next, oh, 5 hours, it's dead in the water. Maybe it needs a bit of work, but when this crashes harder than Ted Kennedy at a New Year's party, I won't be crying my eyes out.

Sirat supports this repeal. First, because our priests have discovered new texts that further prove that we were created by a benevolent god, and second, because it's far too specific, especially for such a diverse world as this one.

Like I said, I would support a repeal of this reslution, to be replaced by something far more dynamic and, dare I say, useful. That guarantees a variety of education, and a minimum of scientific education accompanied by that nations beleif system. Providing not one or the other theory, but the most common theories available, presenting evidence for and against each, and allowing the student to determine their beleif. This kind of proposal probably wouldbe deleted without a repeal of #101. Although I must acknowledge that #101 poses no harm and their are alot more important "repeal and replace" proposals.

Which reminds me, anyone feel like revisting "End Slavery" again :headbang:

Which reminds me, anyone feel like revisting "End Slavery" again :headbang:

I'd like to see that! I can't do anything about it personally, since I'm not in the UN, and my UN pupp, er I mean ally, doesn't have the endos. But I'd love to see the various reactions to it, even though I don't see any such repeal succeeding.

Like I said, I would support a repeal of this reslution, to be replaced by something far more dynamic and, dare I say, useful.Unlikely. Education has largely been relegated to local control.

Unlikely. Education has largely been relegated to local control.

As it should be, local governments know far better what their people need to learn.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Oh, this is most embarrassing. You are indeed correct and my comment is withdrawn. Having read through the offending clause in question, I find the phrasing quite refreshing (though the dating is erroneous).

I still oppose repeal.
Is that stiff-speak for "I can't be arsed defending my position, so I'll just curl up into this shell"? I'm not asking you for literary criticism of the proposal - I'm asking you to defend why it is appropriate for the UN to violate the separation of church and UN by assuming a single benevolent deity.

I still support repeal. Marvel at my crushing, invincible argument!

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Is that stiff-speak for "I can't be arsed defending my position, so I'll just curl up into this shell"? I'm not asking you for literary criticism of the proposal - I'm asking you to defend why it is appropriate for the UN to violate the separation of church and UN by assuming a single benevolent deity.

I still support repeal. Marvel at my crushing, invincible argument!

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
My dear fellow, I merely emphasised that my position had not changed. I've already stated that my opposition to repeal is based on the same arguments presented by the wise representatives of Love and esterel and Ariddia.

The controversial assumption concerns me not. It is an unfortunate flaw, but a mild one. I regard it as a rhetorical flourish and maintain that the strengths of the resolution outweigh this weakness.

I was poking through the resolutions on the NSwiki site, trying to get some inspiration for legislation, and I came across #101 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=100). I read it and immediately thought to repeal it. So, here we are.

In my view, the arguments made by #101 are biased against the beliefs and cultural views of individual nations. It is also very well known that many NS nations are not human, with very specific creation stories, scientific or not.

As well, the arguments specifically referring to god, and a specific number of people, are in poor form for legislation of the United Nations and should not be kept on the rolls any longer. This legislation is also made redundant by "Freedom of Scientific Research" and "UN Educational Aid Act."

There you have it, my first proposal.

Creationism is pseudo-science. Creationism makes no clear, bold or precise predictions.

Good for you on your first proposal though!

Creationism is pseudo-science. Creationism makes no clear, bold or precise predictions.

Good for you on your first proposal though!

Well, thanks... but I wasn't supporting creationism as a science.