Link.

Link.

Now to quote from the second article ...

So let me guess, they'll critique and objectively review the scientific theories but not any alternates.

So now we have the subjects they're going to cover whether it's in the bill or not.  Lets look at them individually.

Evolution: The only critiquing they can realistically give is on creationist evolution, not biological evolution as they state in the (original) bill.  Even if they do only do biological evolution they'll only be critiquing the layman's explanations in which criticisms are all more than adequately answered by going beyond the layman's explanation which I doubt will happen.

Chemical Origins of Life: Once again, layman's explanation or creationist evolution is all they'll critique here.

Global Warming: I'm not in 100% convinced about global warming myself, but majority of the solutions put forward I agree with whole heartedly if not simply for the sake of minimising how quickly we chew up the finite resources of this planet.  I agree with what they want, just not why they want it. 

Human cloning: Shouldn't that be cloning in general?  How is human cloning any different to sheep or dog cloning scientifically?  The only thing they can really critique in human cloning is the moral side of things which, to be perfectly honest, has fuck all to do with science.  Science doesn't say one way or the other on the moral side.  It doesn't say it's right or wrong, just that it can be done (or soon will be).  Are they actually going to critique whether it can possibly be done?

This bill is ludicrous.  Did they actually have someone who was against it arguing against it, or just someone who knew more about being P.C.  I suspect the latter.