This is non-trivial.
I just love what he wants to put in the constitution:
that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link
must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries
it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself.
IMO this kind of stuff is over-specific for a statute, and he wants to put it in the constitution!
It's also not undebatable fact. Evolutionists could provide him with a dozen "missing links" (ooh, but once we find them, they're not missing! and then they have new missing links on both sides of them!), convincing explanations for the evolution of sex, and rip up his mathematical proof.
I bet he does not even know that sex is not always simply XY = male, XX = female.
Yes, it's crazy, but it's not all that difficult to get the signatures needed to put it on the ballot. That's when the fun begins. We'll have no shortage of thread material.
You can pass all the laws in the world, but the Universe ain't gonna obey.
Well, to be fair, state constitutions tend to be a lot more specific than the federal constitution. The California constitution specifies how fruit and nut orchards are to be taxed (can't tax them until four years after they've been planted) and how overtime for mechanics and others on public works is governed (no work longer than eight hours "except in wartime or extraordinary emergencies that endanger life or property"). And so forth. By those lights, it's not an especially crazy provision, until you get to the part about it being completely wrongheaded, of course ;)