| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2005 08:10:34 AM |
| Object: |
One side can be wrong |
One side can be wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have
disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not
teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As
President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to
be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing,
everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators
like ourselves.
Life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/
Jerry Coyne
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&scoring=d&tab=wg
Richard Dawkins
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6eabadab5e94250
.
|
|
| User: "343256324jkihb" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
05 Sep 2005 04:32:07 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125562234.355011.290430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One side can be wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have
disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not
teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As
President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to
be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing,
everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators
like ourselves.
Life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1559743,00.html
"And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is
nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name
to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick
public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's
mandate for separation between church and state."
ID is not creationism. Creationism is the belief that the chapter "Genesis"
from the bible is literally true. Creationists interpret scientific evidence
in ways that are consistent with the Genesis story.
ID is the science of identifying characteristics of intelligent design in
objects. It's purpose is to see if it is possible to distinguish objects
created by intelligent beings from objects created through unintelligent
means. This science in its pure form can help us understand what
"intelligence" is and thus help us understand ourselves better. It is
controversial only when the techniques of ID are applied to living organisms
or other "natural" phenomena.
"Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these
controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one."
Intelligent design is not a religious argument. It is mathematical, logical
and philosophical in the way that information theory is mathematical.
Intelligent design does not have anything to say about the designer just as
information theory is focused on information and not who created the
information.
"If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered
through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't
happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply
isn't any ID research to publish."
Dr Richard Sternberg has suffered harassment for allowing a article about ID
to appear in a journal he edited. http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm
Dr. Dembski, Dr. Nancy Bryson, Dr. Caroline Crocker, Dr. Richard Sternberg,
and others, have all either lost positions or been harassed and demoted for
openly doubting that natural, unintelligent processes are a sufficient cause
to explain all of the origin of life and its diversification.
There are numerous research articles published on:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Including peer reviewed peer-edited articles.
"Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to
the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government
officials they elect."
The scientific elite would like to retain authority about what people
believe. However in a democratic society it is essential for civil
authorities to maintain authority over scientific matters. 1) There is no
reason why non-scientists cannot obtain specialized knowledge in order to
make policy decisions. In court cases expert witnesses are often used
questioned by lawyers to elicit information needed by juries to make
decisions. 2) There can be a conflict of interest for scientists who have to
consider the consequences for their standing and career if a scientific
theory they have supported is later found to be incorrect or if they support
a theory that is controversial. 3) There can be a great disagreement between
what is scientifically sound and politically, and humanistically sound. The
Eugenics movement of the 1920's is an example of this. (see "memo"
downloadable from
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/#more-345)
Other examples include medical tests done on ethnic minorities in the US.
"The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same
character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent
design."
There is postive evidence. The work on specified complexity by William
Dembski is a prime example. It is a theory of how to identify a
characteristic of intelligent design and how it can be applied to biological
systems. Other works can be found on the Discovery Institute web site.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
"In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide
it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining
Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking
whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it.
Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent
reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce
evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce
one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment
the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all
sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish."
Intelligent design is not based on saying, "natural selection can't explain
this so it must be intelligent design". Intelligent design asserts that
there are certain characteristics of objects, such as specified complexity,
that indicate they were designed by an intelligence. If some object lacks
any of these characteristics it is not considered to be intelligently
designed even if it cannot be explained by mainstream science.
"Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent
"cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary
transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the
bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single
authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the
evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever
unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water."
There are many anachronistic fossils. However they are dismissed because
they do not agree with established theory. Many of these anachronistic
fossils are discussed the book, "The Hidden History of the Human Race" by
Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. One may argue with the
interpretation of the evidence but it is incorrect to say there are no
anachronistic fossils, the fact is that they exist and are ignored.
"This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that,
if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, it might also be
too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that
any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a
universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically
improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even
more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have
created."
ID does not assert God god exists, nor does it assert He is the designer of
earth life. ID theory does not assert that intelligence requires an
intelligent designer. If earth life was intelligently designed, ID permits
that the designer of earth life arose naturally.
"In fact, the bacterial flagellum is certainly not too complex to have
evolved, nor is any other living structure that has ever been carefully
studied. Biologists have located plausible series of intermediates, using
ingredients to be found elsewhere in living systems."
Why does the author use the word "plausible" instead of "proven", given the
strict demands he places on proof for ID elsewhere in the article. This is
hypocrisy.
"The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the fact
of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a fraction of
the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics
or the heliocentric solar system."
First it is plausible, now it is a fact?
At hearings in Kansas to investigate how evolution should be taught there
were 23 witnesses who testified against "unintelligent" evolution, 17 had
PhD's, twelve were university professor, all were authors of books or
articles on relevant subjects. (see "memo" downloadable from
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/06/19/inherit-an-ill-wind-and-other-musings-about-science/#more-345)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
05 Sep 2005 05:52:46 PM |
|
|
"343256324jkihb" <343256324jkihb@343256324jkihb.343256324jkihb> wrote in
message news:dfhru902gsd@enews4.newsguy.com...
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125562234.355011.290430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One side can be wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
<snip>
ID is the science of identifying characteristics of intelligent design in
objects. It's purpose is to see if it is possible to distinguish objects
created by intelligent beings from objects created through unintelligent
means.
What has ID shown?
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "343256324jkihb" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
06 Sep 2005 05:12:01 AM |
|
|
"343256324jkihb" <343256324jkihb@343256324jkihb.343256324jkihb> wrote in
message news:dfhru902gsd@enews4.newsguy.com...
....
"Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly
to
the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government
officials they elect."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/bfd8f4b714bffc3c/b8f9f5b3848713c5?lnk=st&q=343256324jkihb&rnum=2&hl=en#b8f9f5b3848713c5
"A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design are
crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the
opposite. Discovery Institute, the nation's leading research organization
supporting intelligent design scholars, strongly opposes efforts to mandate
the theory.
...
A third misunderstanding is that there are widespread efforts to mandate
the teaching of intelligent design by legislators and school board members.
What most states are actually considering is not teaching design, but
teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory.
..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
06 Sep 2005 11:46:43 AM |
|
|
"On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 01:12:01 -0400, in article <dfj8fa0fme@enews3.newsguy.com>,
343256324jkihb stated..."
"343256324jkihb" <343256324jkihb@343256324jkihb.343256324jkihb> wrote in
message news:dfhru902gsd@enews4.newsguy.com...
...
"Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly
to
the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government
officials they elect."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/bfd8f4b714bffc3c/b8f9f5b3848713c5?lnk=st&q=343256324jkihb&rnum=2&hl=en#b8f9f5b3848713c5
"A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design are
crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the
opposite. Discovery Institute, the nation's leading research organization
supporting intelligent design scholars, strongly opposes efforts to mandate
the theory.
..
A third misunderstanding is that there are widespread efforts to mandate
the teaching of intelligent design by legislators and school board members.
What most states are actually considering is not teaching design, but
teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory.
.."
Are the advocates of ID still maintaining that ID is a theory?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"The utmost, therefore that the argument [derived from the analogy with human
art] can prove is an _architect of the world, who is always very much hampered
by the adaptabilities of the material in which he works, not a _creator of the
world to whose idea everything is subject." Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A627
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
06 Sep 2005 12:30:30 PM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
"On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 01:12:01 -0400, in article <dfj8fa0fme@enews3.newsguy.com>,
343256324jkihb stated..."
"343256324jkihb" <343256324jkihb@343256324jkihb.343256324jkihb> wrote in
message news:dfhru902gsd@enews4.newsguy.com...
...
"Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly
to
the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government
officials they elect."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/bfd8f4b714bffc3c/b8f9f5b3848713c5?lnk=st&q=343256324jkihb&rnum=2&hl=en#b8f9f5b3848713c5
"A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design are
crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the
opposite. Discovery Institute, the nation's leading research organization
supporting intelligent design scholars, strongly opposes efforts to mandate
the theory.
..
A third misunderstanding is that there are widespread efforts to mandate
the teaching of intelligent design by legislators and school board members.
What most states are actually considering is not teaching design, but
teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory.
.."
Are the advocates of ID still maintaining that ID is a theory?
The Dover Dolts are.
Of course, by declaring that there really isn't any scientific theory
of ID yet, and they just want to "teach the controversy about
evolution", the professional liars at Discovery Institute just raise
yet another question:
If there really is no such theory as "intelligent design", then, uh,
why does the intelligent design movement call itself . . . well . .
the "intelligent design movement"? Why not call itself what it really
is -- the Anti-Evolution Movement, or the Anti-Scientific-Method
Movement, or the Anti-Atheism Movement? Does the ID movement call
itself the ID movement simply to bamboozle people into thinking it has
an actual alternative scientific theory when it really doesn't? Does
the ID movement call itself the ID movement to try and gain all the
rhetorical advantages of claiming to have an alternative theory without
the disadvantages of actually having to PRODUCE one?
Why name it after something that doesn't exist? Unless, of course,
the IDers just intend to dishonestly imply that it DOES exist, even
though it actually doesn't.
I've never had any IDer give me any intelligible explanation for that.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
05 Sep 2005 09:58:56 PM |
|
|
343256324jkihb wrote:
At hearings in Kansas to investigate how evolution should be taught there
were 23 witnesses who testified against "unintelligent" evolution, 17 had
PhD's, twelve were university professor, all were authors of books or
articles on relevant subjects.
And not a single solitary one was able to offer any scientific theory
of ID.
None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not a single one.
I wonder why that is . . . . .
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
05 Sep 2005 09:57:16 PM |
|
|
343256324jkihb wrote:
ID is not creationism.
Yes it is.
Of the six defining characteristics of creation "science" as
listed in the Maclean v Arkansas case:
"Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and
inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes
the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1)
Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2)
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about
development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes
only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and
animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of
the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a
worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth
and living kinds.
Every IDer I've ever heard of accepts at MINIMUM characteristics 2
and 4, (Behe being the only exception to 4, and he has been
waffling), nearly all of them accept 1 and (by rejecting
"macroevolution") 3, and a very large proportion of those who
testified in Kansas either accepted 6 outright, or hemmed and hawed
in an effort to avoid pissing off advocates of number 6. The Kansas
Kangaroo Kourt didn't ask about characteristic 5 ("Flood geology"),
but it's a certain bet that everyone who accepts 6 also accepts 5.
As for 5 and 6, keep in mind that rejecting them does NOT mean that
one is not a creationist --- the old-earth creationists like Ross,
for instance, reject them, and by no stretch of the imagination can
they be considered anything other than creation "scientists", as the
Maclean decision applies to them.
So, of the six characteristics of creationism, nearly all IDers
accept four of them, and a very high proportion of IDers accept the
remaining two of them (or at least have no objections to accomodating
them).
In addition, ALL of the "scientific arguments" made by IDers,
everything from "the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution" to
"information theory disproves evolution", are plagiarized versions of
argument already put forth decades ago by the creation "scientists".
And finally, many prominent IDers are, themselves, creation
"scientists". The best example is Dean Kenyon, who testified in
louisiana in support of the bill giving "equal time" to "creation
science", and who currently serves as a Fellow at the Discovery
Institute.
Finally, the "Wedge Document", which outlines the strategy of the ID
movement, explicitly acknolwedges that ID has its root in creationism:
The very first sentence of the Wedge Document states, "The proposition
that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock
principles on which Western civilization was built."
The document goes on to state:
"Governing Goals
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding
that nature and human beings are created by God. . . .
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of
creation. "
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
01 Sep 2005 09:39:42 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125562234.355011.290430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One side can be wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have
disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not
teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As
President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to
be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing,
everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators
like ourselves.
Life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/
Jerry Coyne
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&scoring=d&tab=wg
Richard Dawkins
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6eabadab5e94250
Nice little piece. I see TalkOrigins and Eugenie Scott get name checked in
the references.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
06 Sep 2005 08:13:00 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
One side can be wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have
disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not
teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As
President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to
be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing,
everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators
like ourselves.
Designs on Darwinism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1563242,00.html
Tuesday September 6, 2005
The Guardian
Why do Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, in attacking the theory of
intelligent design (ID), deal only with the arguments of traditional
creationists (One side can be wrong, Life, September 1)?
Today's ID theorists are more sophisticated. They concede that natural
selection plays some part in development and that creation is not
recent. They do not speak of God but, more generally, of design. Their
position is indeed confused but it surely needs to be addressed
directly. Of course the theory has been seized on by the neocons as a
straight vindication of the Bible.
Life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/
Jerry Coyne
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&scoring=d&tab=wg
Richard Dawkins
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6eabadab5e94250
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: One side can be wrong |
07 Sep 2005 06:59:03 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
maff wrote:
One side can be wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have
disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not
teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As
President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to
be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing,
everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators
like ourselves.
Designs on Darwinism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1563242,00.html
Tuesday September 6, 2005
The Guardian
Why do Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, in attacking the theory of
intelligent design (ID), deal only with the arguments of traditional
creationists (One side can be wrong, Life, September 1)?
Today's ID theorists are more sophisticated. They concede that natural
selection plays some part in development and that creation is not
recent. They do not speak of God but, more generally, of design. Their
position is indeed confused but it surely needs to be addressed
directly. Of course the theory has been seized on by the neocons as a
straight vindication of the Bible.
In defence of Darwinism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1564042,00.html
Wednesday September 7, 2005
The Guardian
Mary Midgley (Letters, September 6), in her defence of intelligent
design biology, perpetuates a common misunderstanding about Darwinism -
namely that it produces a random world.
The biological world is clearly not random - there is a strong pattern
to life, as all Darwinians not only accept but also seek to explain.
Natural selection is not a random process - it is, in fact, strongly
deterministic in that the environment shapes plants and animals in ways
that are highly predictable - hence the fact that the same things often
evolve repeatedly in different groups (wings in bats and birds), under
the same selective pressures and constraints. The random element in
evolution comes from the source of variation on which selection works -
genetic mutations and reorganisations - and this interacts with the
deterministic element of selection to produce a much more subtle
evolutionary process than Professor Midgeley and other correspondents
imply.
Life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/
Jerry Coyne
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Coyne%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Jerry%20Coyne%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&scoring=d&tab=wg
Richard Dawkins
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6eabadab5e94250
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
