Christian (and Muslim) fundamentalists do not deny that evolution occurs. There is clear and obvious evidence that it does, and they accept that.

This statement does not reflect the broad diversity of doctrine on this issue, beliefs run the gamut from theistic evolution thought intelligent design to young-Eartherism.

What they do NOT accept is that evolution can lead to the emergence of new species, and (more importantly) is the sole explanation for the existence of humans. There is strong evidence that they are wrong, but there is not any absolute proof.

And given that much of their arguments center on metaphysics and the nature of proof, there never will be.

There is nothing that we know "beyond the shadow of a doubt".

I'm generally a lot less concerned with epistemological certainty than "What are you going to teach the kids in school?", and does this thing respect freedom of conscience and critical thinking, or simply kowtows to politics, mysticism and dilettante pseudoscience, in the interests of "fairness" and "sensitivity to all worldviews."

That's the 22th century goal.

Unfortunately the Canadian Bill of Rights has some weasel words in it.

Every word is a weasel word for a big enough weasel.

And to think; we were ready to let Canada be a 51st state...

Isn't that the UK?

Sometimes organisms adapt to selection pressure, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they go extinct.

I don't think the modern synthesis makes the claim that this process needs to be successful on a species basis, or needs to "save" or preserve certain populations or not in order to be true, which sounds like what you're proposing. Really all evolution claims is that (1) organisms change through generations, (2) these changes are subject to challenges from the environment and competition, and (3) changes that increase survivability in the face of these challenges will be conserved -- the changes are conserved, not the organisms themselves, the population or the species; these may all be lost in the process. The idea that this process must be "successful" or produce "better" or "more adapted" beings is not a necessary part of the synthesis.

I think the issue is you're seeing it teleologically. Wether something is "adapted" or not is to a large extent subjective, and in the context of evolution and natural history it's basically tautological. Evolution says, if it's alive, it's "adapted."

the mainline factors proposed are causally exhaustive, because that assumption, often driven by worldview bias, is both untestable and unfalsifiable.

I'm not sure the claim that evolution is "causally exhaustive" is true, or even necessary in order to accept that evolution happens. Also I'm not sure where all this emphasis on "falsifiablity" comes from, Karl Popper is by no means considered the "exhaustive" authority on the philosophy of science. We can roll back and establish the evolution is a completely valid scientific concept, say, from a Baconian perspective, due to its practical insight and applicability.

The important part is that we are NOT seeing such rapid changes amongst the PREDATOR population. So this is not unusual at all.

The lizards that are not sticky enough to climb out of reach of the predators are the lizards that get eaten by the predators.

Correlation != Causation.

It is impossible to ever prove causation. In fact, it's impossible to prove causal relationships exist at all, for all data could be explained by coincidence or unknown external factors. Thus this meme is little more than an excuse to dismiss data you don't like.

You can do a lot tighter security with a three-level design unless you very deliberately design the sanity checking into the database logic. For example say you're designing a online bank client, it may in theory show every transaction of every account as every user may in theory be logged in at some point. But if you've logged in as user X and rooted the web server and can query any view or call any procedure that returns data from any other user than X then you have a huge security problem.

In theory I guess you can solve it through the login procedure giving you a session ID, that session ID is used as input to every procedure and everything is validated in SQL on the database server on every procedure before returning any data, but it sounds inconvenient. Not to mention you'd like a little more to happen than just not return data, you'd want some pretty big red lights to go off if user A starts querying on B's account numbers.

That and a lot more lockdown since you know exactly what requests the web server should be sending to the middleware server, you control both sides of the communication, you don't have to deal with all the formatting and navigation and whatnot and got a fairly limited core that you can do security review on. Sounds like good defense in depth to me.

Sure, because we have not made the necessary arrangement for those people (like, say, universal basic income). The more people are being driven out of jobs by automation, the faster we will do so, though the jury is still out on whether torches and pitchforks will be involved in that process.

IMHO, this is largely due to the excessive amount of "rote" work required for Government mandated testing. This teaches people to take tests, not how to think. Numerous professional educators believe the same thing.

The rudimentary elements of Logic are already part of math, but this is measurable logic. Abstract logic dealing with language and politics is not the same thing, but can be learned much easier with a basic understanding of rudimentary math logic. Why on Earth would you wait until Engineering level classes to begin teaching abstract Logic, when it can be taught much sooner?

Absolutely false, you just made this up. Socrates did not believe in writing Philosophy, but his student Plato sure as hell did. As did Aristotle, and just about every other Philosopher that came after. Your claim of "trouble with some of the problems" is way too generic as written, therefor wrong.

I agree when dealing with the measurable, but absolutely false when dealing with the abstract. Using Logic on the abstract means that you have to measure motives. How to build a bridge versus Why to build a bridge for example. Both the "How" and "Why" certainly use logic, but not the same logic.

Plato started "The Academy", so your pedantry is not quite correct. You would also be able to put possessives on the Oracles of Delphi, and at least half a dozen Sophists mentioned by Plato. I do get your point however, and made a grammatical error which should have been "Ancient Greeks". Wholly crap, I'm human!

Fair point!

The word "God" is _in_ the Declaration of Independence, and so is the word "Creator" (Read the first 2 paragraphs). As with the person I responded to, you are not even attempting to look at facts. The words are not "religious rhetoric" when used as we see in both the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance, because there is absolutely no associating theology. Paraphrased, they simply state ~all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights~. If you substitute Creator with your own vision, such as Jewish God or Xenu, that is _your_ bias and certainly not written or even implied.

Theophobia is an unreasonable fear of Religion. Showing anxiety over the word "God" or "Creator" and claiming that the words alone are indoctrinating or theological is a good demonstration of a person with a phobia.

it is stupid that a small error without much consequence ruin your life.

Come on. Tell us. What did you do?

Seriously though. I'm not sure how you think life works, but small errors without consequence ruin lives all the time. "I only had three beers" or "I forgot to wear a rubber" are small errors.

The only question I have about this law is how in the world could it NOT end up being abused? This law is designed to be abused.