It depends if you're using it in the scientific way or the colloquial one. I'm sure that Pence knows the difference in how the word is used.
All of which is moot. Evolution is a theory and not fact. However, of all the current scientific theories for the development of life on Earth, it has a decent degree of real-world evidence supporting it (so arguably is the best of the bunch - for now) .
Mike Pence has a whiff of the Golgafrincham Ark about him and looks more than a little like a Telephone Sanitiser to my eye. Why shouldn't this planet be a super computer built for white mice? It's less less ridiculous than Donald Trump as US President. The US probably has as many UFO believers as Creationists, why not teach the word of Douglas Adams in US schools? Mind you, be careful to also teach the revelation of the enormous mutant star goat.
Read all about it. DARTH VADER TELLS TRUMP "I AM YOUR FATHER!" May the force of my boot be behind him!
The scientific process does actually progress through theories which are eventually proved wrong by new evidence allowing better theories to be developed. But 'Intelligent design' doesn't meet the criteria for a proper scientific theory since it makes no predictions that can be tested.
The prediction is that life can be "intelligently" designed for a specific purpose. So if I take knowledge of DNA + certain physical process capabilities etc, and create say a mule that has N additional lungs (to increase its physical endurance) but all its other traits are unaffected, then I have demonstrated "intelligent design" of life. But that will be all that is shown from a scientific viewpoint (from a Christian belief viewpoint however I will have created an immense sh*t-storm ) .
I'm not sure that is quite right: Doesn't the theory say that life WAS created by intelligent design? What predictions does it make as to what properties life should demonstrate by virtue of this?
Bit late to the party on this post but its the same in the UK. We just have a slightly more "even" share in that we have split up into 650 constituencies with 1 mp per constituency rather than multiple votes per state. Theoretically we could have a majority party with a small number of votes. See UKIP who have more votes than SNP and Liberal Democrats combined but only have 1 MP to represent them. I read somewhere the point of the electoral college (in these forums rather than of an official source) was that the founding fathers envisioned that there would be more people living in cities than in rural areas in terms of 1 man = 1 vote so that they deliberately created the electoral college in order to give greater representation to the rural areas.
If I can emulate the processes successfully, then something far more omnipotent than I must surely have the capability and (see below) imagination to construct our life if they were so inclined ?? "What predictions does it make as to what properties life should demonstrate by virtue of this?" As design is limited by the imagination and your prevailing tech, how could such properties be enumerated ??
I'm sure those well versed in topology theory could show you some premise that means all those constituent shapes could be arranged into something that will resemble something that a human will discern as being of this earth.
As the cockerel is also used by the French as a sporting emblem, you don't wanna be giving them ideas about their entitlement/superiority. "Bout time he started making this more obvious." The 11th commandment ?? Thou shalt support no team other than Tottenham Hotspur FC. For I your God am the Yid army, and will tolerate no other.
