Since Vista, the memory manager will preemptively re load pages that have been bumped out of standby back into standby if there is
free unused memory available. Also since Vista, each page of memory has a priority from 0-7 that determines which pages are preferred to keep in RAM. In all versions of NT based Windows, memory mapping is very similar to page file management and will use many of the same counters (including standby memory, transition and hard faults, pages in/out). Memory mapping is used by lots of components internally and for loading executable images and libraries. Also, file caching is logically based in many ways on memory mapping, although the counters are different in many cases.
What controls that priority setting? I'm asking because it seems like it might relate to a question I asked in response to another post here. It seemed to me that the only way that the OS would be able to intelligently cache the memory used by FF in order to keep the necessary app data and current tab data available would be with some direction from the application itself. Some sort of prioritization scheme would be needed for that. Doesn't sound like that's the sort of priority that you're referring to here, but I was wondering if there might be something I'm missing.
Continuing the Firefox example: it might be one page of memory to each page you want to view. A smart OS will leave the pages with the main Firefox program and current tab in RAM and cache the others first. Then when tasks switch, the cached Firefox pages are reloaded while the user is still looking at the first page. There are page faults, but the user experiences fewer delays.
Ok, I'm truly curious here. How the heck would the OS know what memory space corresponds to the active tab in FF versus the inactive tabs or other application data?
I believe there was a story about Sarah Palin using an unofficial email address when she was governor of Alaska, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.
The key point in that story is that a member of Anonymous, who said he wanted to "derail [Palin's]" campaign," and whose dad happens to be a (Democrat) state representative in Tennessee, hacked into that e-mail address and found that she was using the e-mail address for personal communication and not state business.
That was the "gov.palin@yahoo.com" account, which she used for personal communications. She was actually using "gov.sarah@yahoo.com" for conducting state business and there's boxes of email transcripts to prove it.
Please give me one example of how the Obama Administration is more transparent than the previous administration. Second, I was unaware of the Bush Administration using unofficial email addresses, please provide a reference. I believe there was a story about Sarah Palin using an unofficial email address when she was governor of Alaska, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.
Absolutely not correct. Most of the process is gathering the facts and getting a firm understanding of what the evidence is.
You're basically describing a scientific theory, which is, by definition, an explanation based on facts and evidence. So when you teach the theories, you will, of course, discuss the facts and evidence behind them. The theories are what you're teaching though. Your claim that theories don't belong in a science class is ridiculous.
You don't teach non-scientific theories, which equate to a guesses or hunches, and you certainly don't teach religion.
I agree. Evolution has no place in a science class.
Evolution is backed by tons of evidence and is the only scientific theory in existence that explains the evidence well. There are still areas that are weaker than others, but that's true of pretty much every scientific theory. What you're proposing is not science.
Evolution is merely a theory which was conjured up to explain the existing evidence. It does not attempt to make any predictions, and any predictions that it accidentally makes are generally untestable.
You make ridiculous claims like "You are not working with facts, you are working with theories, and they do not belong in a science class." and expect anyone to take you seriously? Are you even aware that science only deals in theories? You have no business discussing science if you don't even understand the absolute basics of it. In science classes you teach scientific theories. You don't teach non-scientific theories, which equate to a guesses or hunches, and you certainly don't teach religion.
For #1, I know, I already posted a similar comment elsewhere. Still, given how current corporatethink works, someone is bound to think it a good idea to take that pesky natural immune system out of the equation, "for improved stability".
So it will allow us to remove people dumb enough to do that from the gene pool, benefiting humanity.
As for #2, vaccines aren't uploaded to everyone at the same time, even in times of dire emergency. Also, there is ample documentation of a (marginal) number of vaccinees actually getting sick from the vaccine.
Automatic or even wireless updates to this would be pretty crazy. Manual acceptance of any update should be the practice, so the updates would go out at a slower rate and only to those who want them.
A government agency should not tell children that their religious beliefs are wrong that is what separation of church and state are for. It's not a matter about who is right or wrong but a matter of religious freedom unfortunately evolution vs creationism creates a paradox where even though creationism is wrong they still have a right to believe it and the government should not force them or their children to believe otherwise.
It's not the government's fault that their religious beliefs conflict with reality. If they want to teach their kids that the world is flat and 2+2=27, that's just too bad. At that point they should just homeschool because their worldview is completely at odds with reality and science and they have no right to insist that kids be taught things that have no evidence to back them up. Since we have vast evidence that science works and is necessary to our way of life, I think it should certainly win out.
As a Christian, I admire what they are doing, but I do disagree. At least with teaching Creationism in the classroom. I feel that should be left to the parents and to churches.
Agreed, the government has no business teaching religion to anyone. That's a personal matter for kids and their family.
I am, however, of the belief that evolution should be taught as a "theory" and not as "a hard scientific fact".
Everything in science is a theory. That's just elementary science education. Some theories carry more weight than others because they have more evidence behind them. Evolution has a LOT of evidence behind it.
Do I believe that all life on earth evolved from some primordial soup? Heck no - that's more far more out there than Creationism theory - the chances of life evolving by chance are astronomical, and there is no hard data supporting that.
The theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. It only covers what came after that. How the first life developed on earth is still a subject for much debate, but the answer to that question doesn't make much difference to the theory of evolution which only covers how life has changed and evolved since then.
Also, belief in creationism should not necessarially mean that one does not believe in evolution. Look at the creation story in Genesis - the ORDER in which life was created. Then think that maybe the "days" in Genesis may not be literal days, but periods of time, possibly millions of years. What do you have?
Well, you still have a fable with parts cribbed from other more ancient fables. You can believe in a creator and still believe in evolution. Many scientists do. It can't be disproved that there was a creator that set into motion all the natural processes that govern evolution and all other natural processes that we witness. So even though we don't see evidence of a creator, there's no way to disprove something like that either.
No, really and truely, why are we making all of these assumptions about if stuff like placing the Ten Commandments in a government building is a violation of church and state? Do people honestly think this is new? It was happening in 1776. So why did the founding fathers not specifically state this, or try putting a stop to it?
By allowing the government to endorse any religion, you allow it to give preferential treatment and elevate one or more religions above others. This is a bad direction to go in if you believe in freedom of religion. Nobody is going to stop you from praying in school as long as you're not disrupting anything. How could they even know you were praying? I don't see why people feel that the government has any place in teaching religion. It's just not the government's job, and when it comes to public schools, nobody has a right to teach religion to anyone else's kids, so it has no place there. It's a personal matter for the kids and their family.
By religious, I'm assuming you're referring to "god" and etc and not "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". If you are referring to the latter, then by your concluding sentence, you are of the "religion" of non-religion. So in essence, by not having any "religion" class in public schools, we are implying to all children that "religion" is crap. In high school, I think a "religion" class would be beneficial. Of course good material would be difficult to develop, so let's just go back to telling everyone to be atheist AND telling everyone that they have their right to practice a religion should they "illogically" choose to do so.
Nobody tells anyone to be atheist in school. Religion isn't discussed because it's not the government's place to discuss it. That's a personal choice for the family and they should be responsible for teaching whatever religion they want or none at all. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. Otherwise nobody would be truly free to practice whatever religion they want. The government should not be involved at all.
More generally though, the States should write it into their constitutions too, but that's their business, not the Feds.
The states did write it into their Constitutions. Some of them still had state churches after the war anyway, and the last couple holdouts didn't completely do away with them until the mid-1800s, IIRC. This was most likely due to traditions that are hard to get rid of. People see lack of government support for something as an attack. Witness all those who tend to distrust and/or fear the government, yet they still want the government to teach their religion to their kids and everyone's kids. They really don't seem to see how this would certainly go very wrong for all of us.
Nothing in the Bible is credible evidence for the supernatural. While there are plenty of people and places that are described accurately, there are also plenty of things that aren't. Still,
none of it is evidence of anything supernatural.
Thus please remove your requirement that I be an atheist and a denier of the christian bible to be a scientist. Atheism is a religion. It's just a religion that says no god exists.
Beating a dead horse here, but there are plenty of religious scientists, so there's obviously no requirement of atheism. Atheism is not a religion anymore than my lack of belief in the almighty flying invisible pink unicorn is a religion. Lack of belief in something that there is no evidence for is not faith, it's exactly the opposite of faith.
We don't know many things. Evolution has many problems, let's honestly bring them out in the open and talk about them, document them, and try to prove things about them one way or the other.
We do. There are missing pieces to pretty much every theory out there. That doesn't make them wrong. It just means there's more to learn. Science constantly improves them. There's no other credible scientific theory out there to compete with evolution. I don't know why you say nobody wants to talk about it. Sites that discuss evolution in any real depth do talk about it. Scientific papers talk about it.
Basically what I'm wondering here is what specific issues with the theory do you believe are not being talked about?
If only it were that easy. Teaching evolution can be interpreted as religious crap, no matter the facts, in comes into conflict with the creationist beliefs and as you said they have a right practice their religion, the Texas board has chosen the approach of including both in text books because they don't want to deal with the headaches of leaving out one or another. Their only other choice is to leave out subjects that offend groups which is just as stupid.
Evolution is not Atheism, and Atheism is not religion in any possible sense of the word. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by rather vast amounts of evidence. No other theory has held up in light of the evidence.
That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out. Whoops, there goes macroevolution*. Whoops, there goes the big bang. Whoops, there goes the primordial soup.
Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet. Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not. So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite. And what if it isn't definite and never will be? Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!
Oh? What's that? You want to put in some theories anyway? Hey, how about this! You put in a few alternate theories, and you label them as theories.
*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.
When you actually come up with a scientific theory for I.D. or whatever you want to call creationism, and have even a reasonable fraction of the evidence we have for evolution (yes, even macro) that hasn't been disproved, then sure, I could see the argument for including that.
Devil's advocate: they always existed, we just never noticed them. They aren't changing or adapting, we're just altering the ratio of non-resistant to resistant strains. Overpopulation isn't evolution. Same principle would be to go into a town and shoot everyone of Negro descent. Oh look, now everyone's white there. Does that mean the Negros evolved into whites? Or, go in and shoot all the Caucasians, all the blue eyed persons, all the women, etc.
Thus, all we are doing is exterminating particular strains, destroying God's creatures. This blasphemy needs to stop now! He created everything for a purpose, man has no right to alter his creation!
Except that we've seen the changes happen in controlled environments where only one species existed initially.
I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.
I must deal with more up to date creationists than you. They believe in natural selection, but evolution requires speciation events, which they don't believe in. Good thing that several of those have been documented (one was just published last week or so...).
Lies was a great book, BTW.
It's not even just new species that they are saying aren't possible. They'll often accept that some strain of bacteria evolved into some other type of bacteria with some different characteristics. They want to see something evolve into a different "kind" of thing. Getting an actual definition of "kind" is futile though.
Could you make it any more obvious that you are NOT open minded to the fact that one of your views is wrong (NOT necessarily religion or science or evolution (by the way that is only a theory (though I do believe it does present evidence to why it could be true, it is still a theory) (oh I also agree with evolution))).
Everything in science is a theory. If you had any understanding of science at all, you'd know that.
With a republic or a democracy, you'd expect the people to determine what the "standards". The beauty of it is that the "standards" will change to reflect the will of the people.
Not when it comes to the government supporting the teaching of religion in school. The founders of this country knew well the dangers of the state supporting religion. Europe had spent hundreds of years embroiled in one bloody holy war after another, often between different sects of the same religion! Getting the state involved in religion is the last thing that they wanted, because most of them had come to this country to escape religious persecution. You think they wanted to have it start up again here? You think they want the government deciding or enforcing a religious curriculum in school?
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe what you want and practice whatever religion you want. It's not freedom to have it taught to your kids or anyone's kids by the government!
This goes doubly true for any person who tries to claim agnosticism or atheism is not a religion. Failure to teach religious points of view in school is not some form of enlightenment.
Lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence is not a religion. I don't believe in flying pink unicorns either, but that doesn't make me religious.
It is an prosthelizing of atheism and a clear departure from the separation of church and state.
Not hardly. You can't proselytize something that has no belief structure. Atheism has no belief structure. Atheists can have all kinds of different views on things, and the only thing they have in common is a lack of religion.
School teaching should allow that there are multiple points of view on topics. If you are a Christian who does not want a child to hear about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, then send your child to private school that disallows it.
So we'll teach kids about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Bigfoot and the Aliens at Area 51 too then? Those are points of view held by many people as well. You make no sense. It's crazy to spend the time kids have in school learning about all the crap out there that is not part of science and amounts to nothing more than a personal choice to believe on the part of their parents generally. That's what their time outside of school can be used for.
If you are an agnostic who does not want your child to hear about Creationism, then send your child to a private school that disallows it. A healthier approach is to be a parent who is prepared to discuss these topics with a child and explain these differences in opinion. Hopefully, as a parent, your bias will carry more influence than the bias of others.
The best approach is not to waste kids' time on things that have nothing to do with what they are supposed to be learning in school, such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, etc. You don't get to appropriate tax dollars to have your pet beliefs pushed on kids. Send your kids to Sunday school if you want them to learn that stuff. Religion is a personal choice, not something that everyone should be subjected to, especially since you can't teach all religions in school, so it would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Obviously the numbers of theories would need to be limited, but teaching science shouldn't be the teaching of facts or theory, it should be teaching the scientific process of how those facts and theory came to be accepted science. Presenting multiple contrasting theories with discussion about both would seem to be beneficial.
You still haven't explained why anything that isn't science should be taught in a science class.
The falsifiable hypothesis that I.D. makes is that certain objects can not be the result of natural random processes. Mostly because the certain types of complexity do not evolve out of randomness. For example the complexities of a human can not be a results of a natural random process, but rather at some point had intelligence design in the process. This is a testable theory in the fact that you can test nature's randomness and analyze the results in a scientific way.
This does not disprove evolution, it also does not prove creationism. However it is science.
Some really good videos by a guy who's been opposing this crap in Texas for a while now. IIRC, he's a paleontologist. This video talks about what they've been trying to do in Texas. He also has a whole series of videos addressing the "foundational falsehoods" of creationism. Interesting stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Vista, the memory manager will preemptively re load pages that have been bumped out of standby back into standby if there is free unused memory available. Also since Vista, each page of memory has a priority from 0-7 that determines which pages are preferred to keep in RAM. In all versions of NT based Windows, memory mapping is very similar to page file management and will use many of the same counters (including standby memory, transition and hard faults, pages in/out). Memory mapping is used by lots of components internally and for loading executable images and libraries. Also, file caching is logically based in many ways on memory mapping, although the counters are different in many cases.
What controls that priority setting? I'm asking because it seems like it might relate to a question I asked in response to another post here. It seemed to me that the only way that the OS would be able to intelligently cache the memory used by FF in order to keep the necessary app data and current tab data available would be with some direction from the application itself. Some sort of prioritization scheme would be needed for that. Doesn't sound like that's the sort of priority that you're referring to here, but I was wondering if there might be something I'm missing.
Continuing the Firefox example: it might be one page of memory to each page you want to view. A smart OS will leave the pages with the main Firefox program and current tab in RAM and cache the others first. Then when tasks switch, the cached Firefox pages are reloaded while the user is still looking at the first page. There are page faults, but the user experiences fewer delays.
Ok, I'm truly curious here. How the heck would the OS know what memory space corresponds to the active tab in FF versus the inactive tabs or other application data?
I believe there was a story about Sarah Palin using an unofficial email address when she was governor of Alaska, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.
The key point in that story is that a member of Anonymous, who said he wanted to "derail [Palin's]" campaign," and whose dad happens to be a (Democrat) state representative in Tennessee, hacked into that e-mail address and found that she was using the e-mail address for personal communication and not state business.
That was the "gov.palin@yahoo.com" account, which she used for personal communications. She was actually using "gov.sarah@yahoo.com" for conducting state business and there's boxes of email transcripts to prove it.
Please give me one example of how the Obama Administration is more transparent than the previous administration. Second, I was unaware of the Bush Administration using unofficial email addresses, please provide a reference. I believe there was a story about Sarah Palin using an unofficial email address when she was governor of Alaska, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2469&catid=44%3Alegislation&Itemid=1
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2007/04/rove-and-co-broke-federal-law-email-scam
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/12/nation/na-emails12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy for a summary of the whole thing and more references.
science only deals in theories
Absolutely not correct. Most of the process is gathering the facts and getting a firm understanding of what the evidence is.
You're basically describing a scientific theory, which is, by definition, an explanation based on facts and evidence. So when you teach the theories, you will, of course, discuss the facts and evidence behind them. The theories are what you're teaching though. Your claim that theories don't belong in a science class is ridiculous.
You don't teach non-scientific theories, which equate to a guesses or hunches, and you certainly don't teach religion.
I agree. Evolution has no place in a science class.
Evolution is backed by tons of evidence and is the only scientific theory in existence that explains the evidence well. There are still areas that are weaker than others, but that's true of pretty much every scientific theory. What you're proposing is not science.
dammit, where's my mod points when i need them :)
Evolution is merely a theory which was conjured up to explain the existing evidence. It does not attempt to make any predictions, and any predictions that it accidentally makes are generally untestable.
Actually, evolution makes many predictions.
You make ridiculous claims like "You are not working with facts, you are working with theories, and they do not belong in a science class." and expect anyone to take you seriously? Are you even aware that science only deals in theories? You have no business discussing science if you don't even understand the absolute basics of it. In science classes you teach scientific theories. You don't teach non-scientific theories, which equate to a guesses or hunches, and you certainly don't teach religion.
For #1, I know, I already posted a similar comment elsewhere. Still, given how current corporatethink works, someone is bound to think it a good idea to take that pesky natural immune system out of the equation, "for improved stability".
So it will allow us to remove people dumb enough to do that from the gene pool, benefiting humanity.
As for #2, vaccines aren't uploaded to everyone at the same time, even in times of dire emergency. Also, there is ample documentation of a (marginal) number of vaccinees actually getting sick from the vaccine.
Automatic or even wireless updates to this would be pretty crazy. Manual acceptance of any update should be the practice, so the updates would go out at a slower rate and only to those who want them.
A government agency should not tell children that their religious beliefs are wrong that is what separation of church and state are for. It's not a matter about who is right or wrong but a matter of religious freedom unfortunately evolution vs creationism creates a paradox where even though creationism is wrong they still have a right to believe it and the government should not force them or their children to believe otherwise.
It's not the government's fault that their religious beliefs conflict with reality. If they want to teach their kids that the world is flat and 2+2=27, that's just too bad. At that point they should just homeschool because their worldview is completely at odds with reality and science and they have no right to insist that kids be taught things that have no evidence to back them up. Since we have vast evidence that science works and is necessary to our way of life, I think it should certainly win out.
As a Christian, I admire what they are doing, but I do disagree. At least with teaching Creationism in the classroom. I feel that should be left to the parents and to churches.
Agreed, the government has no business teaching religion to anyone. That's a personal matter for kids and their family.
I am, however, of the belief that evolution should be taught as a "theory" and not as "a hard scientific fact".
Everything in science is a theory. That's just elementary science education. Some theories carry more weight than others because they have more evidence behind them. Evolution has a LOT of evidence behind it.
Do I believe that all life on earth evolved from some primordial soup? Heck no - that's more far more out there than Creationism theory - the chances of life evolving by chance are astronomical, and there is no hard data supporting that.
The theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. It only covers what came after that. How the first life developed on earth is still a subject for much debate, but the answer to that question doesn't make much difference to the theory of evolution which only covers how life has changed and evolved since then.
Also, belief in creationism should not necessarially mean that one does not believe in evolution. Look at the creation story in Genesis - the ORDER in which life was created. Then think that maybe the "days" in Genesis may not be literal days, but periods of time, possibly millions of years. What do you have?
Well, you still have a fable with parts cribbed from other more ancient fables. You can believe in a creator and still believe in evolution. Many scientists do. It can't be disproved that there was a creator that set into motion all the natural processes that govern evolution and all other natural processes that we witness. So even though we don't see evidence of a creator, there's no way to disprove something like that either.
No, really and truely, why are we making all of these assumptions about if stuff like placing the Ten Commandments in a government building is a violation of church and state? Do people honestly think this is new? It was happening in 1776. So why did the founding fathers not specifically state this, or try putting a stop to it?
By allowing the government to endorse any religion, you allow it to give preferential treatment and elevate one or more religions above others. This is a bad direction to go in if you believe in freedom of religion. Nobody is going to stop you from praying in school as long as you're not disrupting anything. How could they even know you were praying? I don't see why people feel that the government has any place in teaching religion. It's just not the government's job, and when it comes to public schools, nobody has a right to teach religion to anyone else's kids, so it has no place there. It's a personal matter for the kids and their family.
By religious, I'm assuming you're referring to "god" and etc and not "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". If you are referring to the latter, then by your concluding sentence, you are of the "religion" of non-religion. So in essence, by not having any "religion" class in public schools, we are implying to all children that "religion" is crap. In high school, I think a "religion" class would be beneficial. Of course good material would be difficult to develop, so let's just go back to telling everyone to be atheist AND telling everyone that they have their right to practice a religion should they "illogically" choose to do so.
Nobody tells anyone to be atheist in school. Religion isn't discussed because it's not the government's place to discuss it. That's a personal choice for the family and they should be responsible for teaching whatever religion they want or none at all. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. Otherwise nobody would be truly free to practice whatever religion they want. The government should not be involved at all.
More generally though, the States should write it into their constitutions too, but that's their business, not the Feds.
The states did write it into their Constitutions. Some of them still had state churches after the war anyway, and the last couple holdouts didn't completely do away with them until the mid-1800s, IIRC. This was most likely due to traditions that are hard to get rid of. People see lack of government support for something as an attack. Witness all those who tend to distrust and/or fear the government, yet they still want the government to teach their religion to their kids and everyone's kids. They really don't seem to see how this would certainly go very wrong for all of us.
Nothing in the Bible is credible evidence for the supernatural. While there are plenty of people and places that are described accurately, there are also plenty of things that aren't. Still, none of it is evidence of anything supernatural.
Thus please remove your requirement that I be an atheist and a denier of the christian bible to be a scientist. Atheism is a religion. It's just a religion that says no god exists.
Beating a dead horse here, but there are plenty of religious scientists, so there's obviously no requirement of atheism. Atheism is not a religion anymore than my lack of belief in the almighty flying invisible pink unicorn is a religion. Lack of belief in something that there is no evidence for is not faith, it's exactly the opposite of faith.
We don't know many things. Evolution has many problems, let's honestly bring them out in the open and talk about them, document them, and try to prove things about them one way or the other.
We do. There are missing pieces to pretty much every theory out there. That doesn't make them wrong. It just means there's more to learn. Science constantly improves them. There's no other credible scientific theory out there to compete with evolution. I don't know why you say nobody wants to talk about it. Sites that discuss evolution in any real depth do talk about it. Scientific papers talk about it.
Basically what I'm wondering here is what specific issues with the theory do you believe are not being talked about?
If only it were that easy. Teaching evolution can be interpreted as religious crap, no matter the facts, in comes into conflict with the creationist beliefs and as you said they have a right practice their religion, the Texas board has chosen the approach of including both in text books because they don't want to deal with the headaches of leaving out one or another. Their only other choice is to leave out subjects that offend groups which is just as stupid.
Evolution is not Atheism, and Atheism is not religion in any possible sense of the word. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by rather vast amounts of evidence. No other theory has held up in light of the evidence.
That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out. Whoops, there goes macroevolution*. Whoops, there goes the big bang. Whoops, there goes the primordial soup.
Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet. Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not. So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite. And what if it isn't definite and never will be? Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!
Oh? What's that? You want to put in some theories anyway? Hey, how about this! You put in a few alternate theories, and you label them as theories.
*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.
When you actually come up with a scientific theory for I.D. or whatever you want to call creationism, and have even a reasonable fraction of the evidence we have for evolution (yes, even macro) that hasn't been disproved, then sure, I could see the argument for including that.
Devil's advocate: they always existed, we just never noticed them. They aren't changing or adapting, we're just altering the ratio of non-resistant to resistant strains. Overpopulation isn't evolution. Same principle would be to go into a town and shoot everyone of Negro descent. Oh look, now everyone's white there. Does that mean the Negros evolved into whites? Or, go in and shoot all the Caucasians, all the blue eyed persons, all the women, etc.
Thus, all we are doing is exterminating particular strains, destroying God's creatures. This blasphemy needs to stop now! He created everything for a purpose, man has no right to alter his creation!
Except that we've seen the changes happen in controlled environments where only one species existed initially.
I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.
I must deal with more up to date creationists than you. They believe in natural selection, but evolution requires speciation events, which they don't believe in. Good thing that several of those have been documented (one was just published last week or so...).
Lies was a great book, BTW.
It's not even just new species that they are saying aren't possible. They'll often accept that some strain of bacteria evolved into some other type of bacteria with some different characteristics. They want to see something evolve into a different "kind" of thing. Getting an actual definition of "kind" is futile though.
Could you make it any more obvious that you are NOT open minded to the fact that one of your views is wrong (NOT necessarily religion or science or evolution (by the way that is only a theory (though I do believe it does present evidence to why it could be true, it is still a theory) (oh I also agree with evolution))).
Everything in science is a theory. If you had any understanding of science at all, you'd know that.
With a republic or a democracy, you'd expect the people to determine what the "standards". The beauty of it is that the "standards" will change to reflect the will of the people.
Not when it comes to the government supporting the teaching of religion in school. The founders of this country knew well the dangers of the state supporting religion. Europe had spent hundreds of years embroiled in one bloody holy war after another, often between different sects of the same religion! Getting the state involved in religion is the last thing that they wanted, because most of them had come to this country to escape religious persecution. You think they wanted to have it start up again here? You think they want the government deciding or enforcing a religious curriculum in school?
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe what you want and practice whatever religion you want. It's not freedom to have it taught to your kids or anyone's kids by the government!
This goes doubly true for any person who tries to claim agnosticism or atheism is not a religion. Failure to teach religious points of view in school is not some form of enlightenment.
Lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence is not a religion. I don't believe in flying pink unicorns either, but that doesn't make me religious.
It is an prosthelizing of atheism and a clear departure from the separation of church and state.
Not hardly. You can't proselytize something that has no belief structure. Atheism has no belief structure. Atheists can have all kinds of different views on things, and the only thing they have in common is a lack of religion.
School teaching should allow that there are multiple points of view on topics. If you are a Christian who does not want a child to hear about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, then send your child to private school that disallows it.
So we'll teach kids about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Bigfoot and the Aliens at Area 51 too then? Those are points of view held by many people as well. You make no sense. It's crazy to spend the time kids have in school learning about all the crap out there that is not part of science and amounts to nothing more than a personal choice to believe on the part of their parents generally. That's what their time outside of school can be used for.
If you are an agnostic who does not want your child to hear about Creationism, then send your child to a private school that disallows it. A healthier approach is to be a parent who is prepared to discuss these topics with a child and explain these differences in opinion. Hopefully, as a parent, your bias will carry more influence than the bias of others.
The best approach is not to waste kids' time on things that have nothing to do with what they are supposed to be learning in school, such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, etc. You don't get to appropriate tax dollars to have your pet beliefs pushed on kids. Send your kids to Sunday school if you want them to learn that stuff. Religion is a personal choice, not something that everyone should be subjected to, especially since you can't teach all religions in school, so it would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Obviously the numbers of theories would need to be limited, but teaching science shouldn't be the teaching of facts or theory, it should be teaching the scientific process of how those facts and theory came to be accepted science. Presenting multiple contrasting theories with discussion about both would seem to be beneficial.
You still haven't explained why anything that isn't science should be taught in a science class.
The falsifiable hypothesis that I.D. makes is that certain objects can not be the result of natural random processes. Mostly because the certain types of complexity do not evolve out of randomness. For example the complexities of a human can not be a results of a natural random process, but rather at some point had intelligence design in the process. This is a testable theory in the fact that you can test nature's randomness and analyze the results in a scientific way.
This does not disprove evolution, it also does not prove creationism. However it is science.
Link to actual scientific hypotheses?
Some really good videos by a guy who's been opposing this crap in Texas for a while now. IIRC, he's a paleontologist. This video talks about what they've been trying to do in Texas. He also has a whole series of videos addressing the "foundational falsehoods" of creationism. Interesting stuff.