John haught has said in his writings: "evolution makes very good sense scientifically speaking. but does it make good sense theologically as well? not everyone thinks it does. religious believers who find evolution contrary to faith usually do so because they are focusing on the complex 'design' that scientists have discovered in cells and organisms. they insist that life's chemically and physically improbable architecture points to a divine intelligence that current biology cannot explain. evolution-inspired atheists, however, usually respond that the architecture of cells and organisms is imperfect, even though awe-inspiring. 'this imperfection - the manifold design flaws of life - ,' writes david barash of the university of washington, 'points incontrovertibly to a natural, rather than a divine process, one in which living things were not created de novo, but evolved.' i propose, however, that religious thought can make significant contact with darwin's science if instead of focusing on design it turns its attention to the drama of life. the typically design-obsessed frame of mind through which so many devout theists, as well as staunch atheists, are looking at the question of god and evolution is a dead end both scientifically and theologically." describe haught's main point here.

Scenario: the economy of country y has been in an economic downturn for the last several months. recently, businesses have invested in new technologies in order to produce the goods that consumers are demanding within the nation's own borders. the government has removed regulations to allow producers and consumers to have more financial freedom. as a result, consumer spending has increased and the economy has begun to improve. use the drop-down menus to complete the sentences. according to the information presented about country y, the classical economic concept of ( the invisible hand, consumer efficiency, government regulations) can be seen. the economic events of country y demonstrate the idea of laissez faire because the government (did, did not) intervene in economic events.

Which of these best describes why president franklin d. roosevelt created the new deal?

An employee of the state government always received his state paycheck on the last workday of the month. the employee was not a good money manager, and just barely managed to make it from paycheck to paycheck each month. on the second to the last workday of the month, the employee had $45 in his checking account, and, needing to buy a birthday gift for his sister, he wrote a check to a gift boutique for $100. he knew that he would be receiving his paycheck the next day, so he could deposit the paycheck before the check would be sent to the bank. however, unbeknownst to the employee, the state legislature was having a budget impasse. because the state constitution prohibited any deficit spending, state employees were not paid as usual. without a paycheck to deposit, the check written to the gift boutique was returned for insufficient funds. the merchant complained to the police, who arrested the employee and charged him under a statute that prohibited "issuing a check knowing that it is drawn against insufficient funds, with intent to defraud the payee of the check."what should be the outcome of the employee's prosecution? a not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day. b not guilty, because it was reasonable for the employee to expect that he would receive his paycheck as usual. c guilty, because the employee knew when he wrote the check that he did not have sufficient funds in his account to honor it. d guilty, because reliance on a future source of income does not vitiate the employee's violation of the statute when he wrote the check.