NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Right to Learn about Evolution"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #101
Proposed by: Maximus Libra

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

Argument: Position: UN Resolution # 101 could and should be repealed for any of the following three (3) reasons: 1) No proper definition of evolution, 2) Putting forth a religion as science, 3) Endorsement of a religion with tenets that directly oppose many UN Resolutions.

Evidence:

1)Evolution is not defined and it is unclear as whether this term applies one of the six (6) types of evolution or to all six.

Accepting that to be science, the subject has to be observable, repeatable and predictable.

Granting that if it is not science it is faith.

2)Evolution is a religion in that it is not observable, repeatable nor predictable.

Noting that one of the most famous doctrine of this faith is “Survival of the Fittest”

Alarmed by the implications of this doctrine being taken to its logical progression

3)Resolution # 101 should be repealed in that it endorses a specific religion, one with tenets that are set so far against the UN
a)“Survival of the Fittest” is a doctrine which states that the strongest, fastest, smartest is the most fit and best qualified to reproduce and dictate the way things ought to be.
b)This flies directly in the face of UN Resolutions 6, 10, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 31, 41, 44, 51, 53, 56, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 73, 79, 80, 83, 88, 89, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100, 110, 111, 115, 134, 140, 159 and 160.

Conclusion:

Acknowledging some nation’s concern that it should be taught, nothing in this repeal should be construed to ban the teaching of evolution in individual nations

Noting that historically resolutions have been repealed for inexact definitions

Also noting that the UN officially endorses no religion

Outraged that an exception to this policy has been made concerning the religion of Evolution

Incredulous that a religion with a tenet that runs counter to the expressed wishes of the UN in more than 30 resolutions is endorsed by the General Assembly

Respectfully requests member nations to vote to repeal Resolution # 101


Approvals: 2 (Maximus Libra, Flibbleites)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 110 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon May 21 2007

It's currently on Page 8 of proposals looking to gain quorum.

I feel this issue should be supported.

As ambassador to the U.N., I feel it is my duty to bring to the forefront a conflict of issues for what is believed to be faith based problem regarding a U.N. resolution.

Looking at it logically, Evolution states: Nothing acted upon nothing and caused it to be unstable. It exploded, expanded and caused something.

My fellow delegates it's up to you decide if this proposal meets quorum. I urge you to choose wisely.

We have a time portal, and have thus observed evolution, and seen it to be true. We also know that Jesus was, in fact, a kiddy fiddler and that Moses was a nicotine junky. God looks like Barry Manilow

What a lovely knee jerk reaction. This resolution is based on science. As a UN ambassador one should not be 1) mocking a religion 2) assume that someone is of a particular religion. For all you know, the Ambassador from Barbender could be a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, complete with pirate outfit (RW religion with millions of followers)

Should you care to truly debate the science and or the proposal, I'm here ready and waiting. But if your mind is made up. So be it. I think you're just afraid to even address the the issues, any of the three points, because they challenge your world view.

This Issue has been framed not as a comparison of any religion and evolution but as three separate problems with the original Resolution. Any one of the issues should be valid to have it repealed. If someone wants to have it re-instated, simply rewrite it and address the concerns in the repeal.

If you took the time to look at the history of resolution you'd see this is how the process works. Everytime someone shoots down a resolution, the author will improve it to the point where it will stand on it's own.

Oh good the author's here, now I can ask you just how in the hell Right to Learn about Evolution contradicts the United Nations Security Act?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

While we agree Resolution #101 is a reasonably horrendous resolution, this repeal is not anything we'd be interested in supporting.
1)Evolution is not defined
Not a major concern, given the only mandatory clause is 'MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.'
and it is unclear as whether this term applies one of the six (6) types of evolution or to all six.
There are not 'six types of evolution': there may be six different, predominant theories right now, but to flatly state there are six and only six is as unscientific as you accuse the resolution of being.
Accepting that to be science, the subject has to be observable, repeatable and predictable.
There are plenty of non-repeatable phenomena that can given valid scientific attention. You want to give this clause considerably more explanation - or rather, you don't, because it's not really relevant and should just be cut.
Granting that if it is not science it is faith.
No, I disagree. For one, some science is grounded in a faith position; for two, the universe doesn't exist in a closed couplet between science and faith. By your own definition, there are phenomena that are not based on faith assumptions, but which are not 'scientific'.
2)Evolution is a religion in that it is not observable, repeatable nor predictable.
Eh-huh, logic error. Where did religion suddenly come from? Earlier it was faith. Atheism is a faith, but it's not an organized religion; two members of the same religion can have different faiths; and evolution can be observed, repeated, and predicted in microevolutionary studies: scientists have been able to see evolution taking place.

Noting that one of the most famous doctrine of this faith is “Survival of the Fittest”

Alarmed by the implications of this doctrine being taken to its logical progression
Oh please. So because we're teaching people science, we're suddenly going to start sacrificing the poor at the Altar of the Test Tube?
3)Resolution # 101 should be repealed in that it endorses a specific religion, one with tenets that are set so far against the UN
If you're going to repeal it for religious statements, do so because it assumes a benevolent deity.
a)“Survival of the Fittest” is a doctrine which states that the strongest, fastest, smartest is the most fit and best qualified to reproduce and dictate the way things ought to be.
No, it's not. That little dangler at the end? All your work. Anyone who says that organisms better suited to survival are thereby THE MASTER RACE RAWR is wrong. Try saying it: 'wrong'. Rolls off the tongue nicely.
b)This flies directly in the face of UN Resolutions 6, 10, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 31, 41, 44, 51, 53, 56, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 73, 79, 80, 83, 88, 89, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100, 110, 111, 115, 134, 140, 159 and 160.
1. Your repeal just became illegal for excessive back-reference.
2. Clutching. At. Straws. What this sentence translates as is: 'by endorsing the teaching of evolution, the UN is legalising slavery, authorising unwarranted interception of personal communications, legalising child labour...' etc. The one I love most is:

'by endorsing the teaching of evolutionary science, the UN is legalising child molestation'.
Noting that historically resolutions have been repealed for inexact definitions
Yeah: where that definition compromised the resolution's efficiency.
Also noting that the UN officially endorses no religion
Not yet it doesn't, but nothing proscribes it from doing so. Maybe it'd be more productive to work on that?
Outraged that an exception to this policy has been made concerning the religion of Evolution
Evolution is not a religion. It is a theory.
Incredulous that a religion with a tenet that runs counter to the expressed wishes of the UN in more than 30 resolutions is endorsed by the General Assembly
Fortunately, you can loosen your collar and calm the fuck down, because it hasn't.
Respectfully requests member nations to vote to repeal Resolution # 101
Definitely the best bit. After lying, invoking bad science, lying, stating that evolution promotes female genital mutilation, and lying, you lodge a respectful request. You've already shown how little respect you have for this institution with your foul petulance.

Opposed.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Opposed to the resolution as written. Retired WerePenguins is officially a agnostic nation and in general we would support a repeal, but we find this repeal a bid wordy, off tangent and similiar to the types of repeals that brought me to the UN in the first place where I was protesting the UN's bigoted attitudes against non-pure humans.

"Granting that if it is not science it is faith."

Have you ever heard of an "art?" Ballet, for example is not faith. Aside from jokes like that there is a wide number of things between science and faith and a lot of disciplines that are arts and not sciences. I didn't spend my years at RWPI just for the nice rugby schollarship you know.

And I don't want to get started on the whole "survival of the fittest" nonsense. It's not the fittest who survive, it's the ones that are the luckiest to avoid the disaster du jour.

Should a rewrite occur and should that rewrite follow the KISS principle (Keep it short & simple) I would definitely approve!

"Thank you, Ambassador Benson. Excellent analysis, to which the Commonwealth wholeheartedly agrees. We stand thoroughly opposed."

We agree with the comments of Ms. Benson, Mr. Blonde, and Citizen Zero-Thirteen. If a repeal was proposed which presented sound, reasonable arguments, we would give it careful consideration. Not this one.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

My fellow U.N. ambassadors, May I point out this proposal has nott reached quorum, yet. Barbender stongly agrees with Maximus Libra on the issue and we feel this issue should reach the general assembly.

It does not matter or not whether or not you support the proposal. Do you as delegates to the U.N. feel this issue should be voted by the Assembly or not? Why must you kill this issue in it's infancy? Are you afraid that it will not be defeated in the assembly?

It does not matter or not whether or not you support the proposal. Do you as delegates to the U.N. feel this issue should be voted by the Assembly or not? Why must you kill this issue in it's infancy? Are you afraid that it will not be defeated in the assembly?

Actually, it does matter whether we support it or not. If we don't support it, why should we let it even get that far? If we can keep a horrid proposal from ever reaching the desks of our fellow delegates, thus preserving their sanity and their valuable time, we're doing them a service as far as we're concerned. Keeping a crap proposal from even having the chance to pass is doing our part as UN members to ensure only useful legislation passes.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

My fellow U.N. ambassadors, May I point out this proposal has nott reached quorum, yet.

Thank the gods.

It does not matter or not whether or not you support the proposal. Do you as delegates to the U.N. feel this issue should be voted by the Assembly or not?

No. No, we do not.

Why must you kill this issue in it's infancy?

Because you wrote a shitty repeal. Ms. Benson handled it quite expertly, I think.

Are you afraid that it will not be defeated in the assembly?

Yes. Very afraid, that in the unlikely even that such a horrendous resolution were to achieve quorum, everyone in the UN would simultaneously go completely insane and vote for your horrible little repeal, one predicated on lies and half-truths.

We would like the assembly to note, as well, that our delegation once authored a repeal of this same proposal that failed to achieve quorum. We are not, however, glad that our efforts were continued in such a horrible fashion.

Most courteously,

"This system is in place in most democracies in the multiverse. If a proposal cannot reach a minimum level of support, there is no reason for it to be brought to the floor. Otherwise, we'd have to vote for every single half-witted proposal brought forth. This system is a screening process that is absolutely necessary. Without it, we'd have such a backlog of proposals that we'd be voting on issues decades old. Do not feel dissappointed that you failed. That's how it works.

"On second thought, please do. This proposal is laughable and resides in the realm of..." Wolfgang consults his PET for an accurate word, "...alarmist pettifoggery."

It does not matter or not whether or not you support the proposal. Do you as delegates to the U.N. feel this issue should be voted by the Assembly or not? Why must you kill this issue in it's infancy? Are you afraid that it will not be defeated in the assembly?

Repeals are interesting things. They are the only "resolution" types that cannot be struck out. You can strike out all other resolutions by repealing them. You can't repeal a repeal. So the wording on the repeal is important t some, including myself. I'm not currently a delegate, but even if I were I'd clearly approve any well written resolution that I didn't find massively objectionable. I think this needs a rewerite.

For the love of sushi, please hash out your proposal here or among friends before you bring it up for delegate approvals.

Because you wrote a shitty repeal.

Actually Prince Tang, you may want to take a closer look at the repeal. If you do, you'll notice that while the fellow from Barbender is pushing for it to reach quorum, they didn't write the proposed repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: I happen to agree that the arguments in this proposed repeal are abhorrent if not out and out lies. I ask the author again how "Right to Learn about Evolution" contradicts the "United Nations Security Act."

slight update....

the proposal is now on Page 7 of proposals waiting for quorum.

Approvals: 10 (Maximus Libra, Flibbleites, NewTexas, Ellenburg, Login Name, Gortania, Baudemire, Icycomb, Compulsoria, Vie Sang)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 102 more approvals)


OOC: WOW, someone finally caught on that I did not write the repeal. Also the author of this repeal has a job in the EST, USA (same time zone as New York City and Washington D.C.) Expect time delays to any of his responses. He can basically only respond somewhere between 7pm- 11pm EST. (except for weekends, he has more free time in general then) So, please have patience and you will get your answer... even though you may or may not like it.

the proposal is now on Page 7 of proposals waiting for quorum.

Don't bother with page numbers. Use search criteria. Those page numbers can change on a whim when one of the mods goes through with the Shovel of Spam Removal. Incidentally, this line ... b)This flies directly in the face of UN Resolutions 6, 10, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 31, 41, 44, 51, 53, 56, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 73, 79, 80, 83, 88, 89, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100, 110, 111, 115, 134, 140, 159 and 160. ... is making my Shovel hungry. We'll see if your delegate's proposal survives the weekend purge when I get around to it.

Oh great. We've gone and opened up a can of worms. You all know the worms hate collecting worms. And putting them back in is hard enough to.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/notagain.jpg

Quite frankly, we're a Christian nation, and a dictatorship, and because UNR# 101 outlines NO punishments, we imprison anyone caught muttering anything about "adaptation". Normally, we would support such a repeal, but I am not going to sign my name on that piece of whale crud. That would ruin reputation.

Now, I'm no expert on evolution, but it IS a science. That's kind of the point. It's "predictable" and "repeatable". For that you get this:
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/logicerror.jpg

That is all. My colleague may have more.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

*loud honking* *disappointed honking* *angry whistling*

______________,
Harpo,
Akimonad Deputy UN Ambassador

Oh good the author's here, now I can ask you just how in the hell Right to Learn about Evolution contradicts the United Nations Security Act?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Good catch, my error. I misread that Resolution. If you feel this one mistake voids that argument. There are still two other arguments to consider. Thank you for your consideration.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
Protectorate of Maximus Libra

Given that your other "arguments", and I use the term loosely, have been utterly shredded, I don't think that just the one admission of fault is going to win you any friends.

Take your badly conjugated scales away.

Maximus Libra;12666366']If you feel this one mistake voids that argument.

That "one mistake" could very well void your proposal's legality, which is a little more serious as there have been cases where proposals were deleted for having factually incorrect arguments.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Esteemed colleges:

How informative. This in my first time out writing one so thank you for the input. Should it be over-ruled for error on my part on Item three so be it. My error my cost.

However, I have run into problems responding to all these posts, it seems my replies are either too long or I time out.

If need be I'll rewrite it omitting items one and three. However, Evolution is not science. And that is the basic point of contention. Yes there are 6 types of evolution : Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, Organic, Macro and Micro. Most people lump them all together as Evolution. I have scientific arguments against all of them except Micro Evolution, which has proven itself to be science. However, proving a part doesn't prove it all.

Honorable Ambassador from the Flibbleites; I'll bow to your experience since you have endorsed this. Should the current proposal be withdrawn and resubmitted after a careful refocusing or should it be dropped to prevent repetitive motion injuries from all the knees that are jerking?

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Maximus Libra

Maximus Libra;12666597']I have scientific arguments against all of them except Micro Evolution
Would you be so kind as to tell us what they are?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Maximus Libra;12666645']Cosmic Evolution is commonly called the Big Bang Theory (Nothing acted on nothing making nothing unstable so that nothing exploded producing something)

Chemical Evolution states that elements and compounds evolved out of the hydrogen and helium created in the Big Bang

Stellar Evolution concerns the condensation of hydrogen clouds into stars and also planets

Organic Evolution is spontaneous generation of life from non-life. chemicals built themselves up into simple organic compounds and then more complex until life formed.

Macro Evolution is stated as all life evolved from one single celled organism

Micro Evolution is concerns variability of the species.

Thanks for asking
*smacks head*

I know perfectly well what they are, I'd like to hear your "scientific" evidence against them.

Cosmic Evolution is commonly called the Big Bang Theory (Nothing acted on nothing making nothing unstable so that nothing exploded producing something)

Chemical Evolution states that elements and compounds evolved out of the hydrogen and helium created in the Big Bang

Stellar Evolution concerns the condensation of hydrogen clouds into stars and also planets

Organic Evolution is spontaneous generation of life from non-life. chemicals built themselves up into simple organic compounds and then more complex until life formed.

Macro Evolution is stated as all life evolved from one single celled organism

Micro Evolution is concerns variability of the species.

Thanks for asking

Cosmic Evolution violates the First Law of thermodynamics - Matter and Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Creation is of necessity, faith, regardless of your world view.

Chemical Evolution doesn't happen. caveat: Elements up to iron have been observed in stars as a product of fusion. Higher elements have not as determined by spectral analysis.

Stellar Evolution is improbable at best. It violates the Law of Inertia - "Objects in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force". Everything is moving farther away from each other yet somehow manages to condense? Gravity is clearly dropping exponentially (according to the Universal Gravitation Equation) at this "time in history".

"What the crack? I feel fairly confident that we were referring to the evolution of species of organisms. I have never, ever heard of any of the others referred to as 'evolution' in a significant way. Yes, one could think of it that way, but it's not really necessary. It is my belief that the writers of the original had in mind the SCIENTIFIC THEORY that 1. All organisms evolved from a common ancestry and 2. That the organisms of earth change over time.

"Furthermore, I've yet to see you retract the concept that evolution is a religion. A faith, possibly. Religion, no. People do not perform ceremonies to worship evolution.

"Please do not try to compound the issue with irrelevant mush."

Organic evolution as stated by evolutionist themselves requires a reductive atmosphere, a hot earth, boiling oceans and several other conditions I'll not address yet. There is no proof that the earth has ever had anything but an oxidative atmosphere, but still simple organic compounds can appear. Amino acids can be made, in raceamic mixes, about 50% dextro and levo. Al proteins involved in any living system have only levo amino acids, dextro amino acids are either inactive for life or actually toxic to life. Additionally there couldn't have been a chemical soup that produced life, Amino acids last only minutes in boiling water. it denatures them, like when an egg is fried. the "white" protein is denatured and changes color. it cannot go back to previous orientation or folding.

uhm... I might be wrong (considering that I'm not a physicist) but doesn't gravity drop proportionally to the square of the distance? (that still shouldn't make things condense into stars *if they have a sufficiently large impulse to start with*, though)

as for what the authors of resolution 101 were *thinking*, that is completely irrelevant. We must only read what they had written.

Macro Evolution (which everyone seems to be concerned with) has many problems and no solutions. There is no proof that any animal or plant evolved fro another. There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record (archeoptrix (spelling error, I'm trying to beat the time out) is often quoted because no bird has claws on its wings or teeth. Ostriches have claws on their wings and a hummingbird in South America has teeth and have been studied for 20 years without determining why). No Transitional species are extant. And please don't start throwing out the "missing links" in the hominoid family. Each and every one of them has been proven a hoax.

"Exactly! The common use of the word 'evolution' invokes the concept of evolution of species as per Charles Darwin, et cetera. Furthermore, regardless of the general silliness going on hereabouts, it's just not well written anyway."

OOC: In American courts, a judge would give judicial notice, I believe its called, of the commonly accepted fact that "evolution" in common speech denotes evolution of species, thus preventing that fact from having to be proven by the parties.

Micro evolution occurs everyday. It deals with variations in height, skin, hair, feather, scale coloration and other characteristics that normally vary in any given species.


And thanks for the correction on the Gravitation equation. I'm not a physicist either. I was trying to type fast and think lightly on my feet to beat the time out. But I am a Chemist and do know science.

Enough arguing. I've had my say. I'll withdraw the proposal and think about trying again

Before you turn this into yet another debate about evolutionary proof or lack thereof, let me point out that this forum is for debating about UN proposals. In short, you can discuss it's legality and applicability, but please don't waste our time and yours with arguments that have no relevance to the business of the UN.

Maximus Libra, you will NEVER convince people who agree with evolutionary theory that your arguments are correct.

Everyone else, you will NEVER convince Maximus Libra that he's wrong.

Now, let's get back to the business at hand.

OOC, as my IC nation defies this concept: Do you not hold that there are several ridiculously similar components to different creatures?

And, as if this debate weren't confounded enough, do you have a better theory (keyword, that: THEORY) as to the origin of the universe? I don't believe that anyone here will outright say, "The Big Bang is a fact of history." It is merely the predominant THEORY. You seem to have difficulty with separating these, and I really don't mean to offend.

For that matter, do you have a better argument for where humans came from? If not evolution, then did we indeed just magically appear on this planet that also spontaneously came into existence? The reason I do not support these... theories is that I have never, ever seen anything just come into being. No, I've never seen the big bang, and, not being billions upon billions of years old, I've never seen evolution. But, they denote something happening. Not spontaneous occurrence.



THE RELEVANT PART->Finally, why repeal this Resolution? It does not mandate the teaching of evolution of species. It requires nothing of no-one. It merely states that the UN, in general, looks down on those that specifically deny the learning of the most predominant theory, which seems fair to me. It is basically a statement of our position. Nothing more.

EDIT: Aye aye, cap'n Fris. I'm done.

Actually Prince Tang, you may want to take a closer look at the repeal. If you do, you'll notice that while the fellow from Barbender is pushing for it to reach quorum, they didn't write the proposed repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Oh my, Bob. It seems I was so caught up by the stupidity of the proposal itself I equated the blind support of the OP with that of the proposee.

Most courteously,

We'll see if your delegate's proposal survives the weekend purge when I get around to it.It didn't.

Before you turn this into yet another debate about evolutionary proof or lack thereof, let me point out that this forum is for debating about UN proposals. In short, you can discuss it's legality and applicability, but please don't waste our time and yours with arguments that have no relevance to the business of the UN.

Maximus Libra, you will NEVER convince people who agree with evolutionary theory that your arguments are correct.

Everyone else, you will NEVER convince Maximus Libra that he's wrong.

Now, let's get back to the business at hand.

I agree and was merely answering a question.

Well, I guess this thread is next to useless now that the proposal was structually faulty and was deleted. It was fun for once being the voice of reason on a topic such as this. We all learned something form this endeavor.

Now to wait for a topic I can rant on.