What about alternative explanations for the diversity of life on earth? A National discussion had developed about the teaching in public schools of an alternative explanation, to evolution, for biological diversity called Intelligent Design. This idea suggests that that the world ecology and biology is so complex that this infers that there must be a creator much the same way that the complexity of a watch infers a watchmaker. Intelligent Design:

Aplaintiff filed a civil action based on negligence against a defendant in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently ran a red light at an intersection and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff's injuries. a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection, (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. the defendant filed a response to the motion, noting that her answer denied negligence and further denied that her traffic signal was red, and argued that the issue of negligence and the issue of whether her traffic signal was red were in dispute, so those issues should be tried to a jury. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?

Karin bought illegal firearms at a gun show. at her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that karin had acted freely. instead, the judge told the jury that karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. who is correct?

Who is on the senate intelligence committee?