Welcome to the Panda’s Thumb!

| 106 Comments

"The Panda's Thumb" is many things...

First, it is an example of jury-rigged evolutionary adaptation made famous by the late Stephen Jay Gould in an essay of the same name. Second, it is the legendary virtual bar serving the community of the legendary virtual University of Ediacara somewhere in the Ediacaran hills of southern Australia, growing out of the lore of the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. And now it is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of "The Panda's Thumb".

Much as in any tavern serving a university community, you can expect to hear a variety of levels of discussion, ranging from the picayune to the pedantic. The authors are people associated with the virtual University of Ediacara (and thus the talk.origins newsgroup), and various web sites critical of the antievolution movement, such as the TalkOrigins Archive, TalkDesign, and Antievolution.org.

So, here's a virtual pub crawl that you might actually learn something from. We hope you find your time spent here pleasant and rewarding.

106 Comments

Testing the comments. Nice job on the initial post, Wes.

Yes, excellent start Wes. I especially like how the University of Ediacara website lists at the top of it’s resources, “1997 Dean’s Address (NEW!)”.

Well, you have to understand… on the geologic time scale David uses, it *is* new.

This will take the strain off any contributors, too…we’ll each only have to submit one article once an epoch.

So, that means I have to to be able to type, what, 35 words an era?

Looks great. A metaphorical glass is prosecco is now lifted. More power to you all.

PRG

Paul-

You’re welcome to join the list of authors any time (hint, hint).

Some how, this Irishman is shuddering at the idea of a _virtual_ pub crawl.

Are these Genesis epochs - one day equals a thousand beers?

We’re not even 24 hours into this and already the puns have appeared. Darwin help us.

And the beer jokes. Don’t forget the beer jokes.

I think talk.origins is in the process of speciating.

Beautiful job, Wes. (I’ve avoided blogs until now. Good grief there’s a lot of stuff out there in these things.) Your link-list is comprehensive.

Nice Blog.

~DS~

Hey – great-looking blog, and what a cast of contributors. I’ll be a regular visitor.

Too bad about the name, though. Maybe when we see each other next month in LA, Wes, you can give me the evidence showing that the panda’s thumb is suboptimal. ;-) I asked Gould himself once, in his office at the MCZ, and he said it was just obvious. No evidence, however.

Paul-

Less than 24 hours and already the enemy has discovered our base camp! Welcome to the Panda’s Thumb. For you, the Guiness is on the house.

Hi, Paul. Thanks for the compliments.

I’ve already responded to your 1997 “Jettison” paper on suboptimality. Just to pick up from where that left off, the anatomical arrangement of the primate thumb is comparatively superior to that of the panda’s thumb on quantitative measures like range of motion and power. A designer responsible for both designs hobbled the panda by comparison. And it is just obvious. The evidence is in the comparative analysis.

Wesley wrote: “The evidence is in the comparative analysis.”

That’s more or less what Gould said (in March 1990, when we talked about this). OK, I’m game: show me the comparative analysis.

Ed,

There hasn’t been Guiness served in the Thumb for at least three billion years. Although many guest ales are featured, the favourites are Primordial Stout, Burgess Shale Ale and Protostome Pilsner (“Protostome Pilsner - in one end, out the same end”).

I offer to pick up the first round (20 ounce, your choice of brew) at any meeting where I and any contributor here are both attending. Andy – SDB in Calgary this July?

Can I just remind everyone of basic pub safety: always watch your drinks, there may be folk around who think spiking your drinks with dihydrogen monoxide will please some chap called “God” (though I’ve never met the chap and I can’t be sure he’s not someone they’ve just made up).

I’ll be checking in for amusement and education. Will there be an invite to some of the more inspiring IDevotees?

J:-)

This is a great idea guys. I wish you all the best of luck!

“This is a great idea guys. I wish you all the best of luck!”

I could not agree more, bless your little hearts!

I know this might seem a bit odd to point out, but do you have any females on this list of authors at all? The first thing that struck me is that it was a collection of excellent people, and then the second thing that struck me is that it seemed all male.

I’ve noticed this. There are some very important women leaders in the science activism field: obviously Genie Scott of NCSE, Patricia Princehouse in Ohio, Liz Craig in Kansas, and so on, but they are in the minority. However, it seems like this business of writing and posting on the internet is a “guy thing” for the most part. Thinking about why that is would probably be an interesting exercise.

Sorry, Jack, but your answer isn’t adequate. Some of the best and most distinctive voices on the web are female–try reading The Invisible Adjunct or Body and Soul or Making Light or Feministe sometime, just to name a few of my favorites. This blogging thing is definitely not a largely male domain, although the linking thing does seem to be biased, and the fact that this site emerged out of the talkdesign/talk.origins environment may have also predisposed it to that selectively male sample.

Has anyone considered designing a really cool Panda’s Thumb t-shirt and offering it for sale here? I’ll bet that quite a few folks (including myself) would love to buy one (or a few). The t.o. crowd alone would probably buy up a whole production run. This could help foster the evilutionist conspiracy and raise a bit of money to offset some of the costs of running this web-site.

The recent design changes have forced the text at the bottom of the article (date, comments etc) onto two lines in Opera 7x, but only taking up half the line width, so it should only be on one line.

Nobody but me uses Opera though, so don’t worry about it!

The line break is there in every browser, not just Opera. I don’t think I like it, either.

All I must say is thank you for existing..

ciao.

a way for him to avoid my questions.

Avoid your questions??? You mean questions like this one:

If God exists, then to ignore Him and His purposes, is to ignore the most important part of reality

Once again, John: Ploink Ploink killed God and Jesus (and a few lesser saints) in the weeks following the 2000 Election debacle. Prove that it didn’t happen. I dare you. What’s that? You can’t prove it? Just as I suspected.

But you continue to live in denial and insist on believing in your God. Pathetic.

News flash: this blog has NOTHING to do with the existence of your God, John. That is why so many scientists believe in both God and in Darwin’s theories explaining how life evolved.

If you find it necessary to attack the hard work of hundreds of thousands of biologists in order to logically justify your faith, then your faith is sickeningly pathetic.

If you don’t find it necessary to attack the hard work of hundreds of thousands of biologists in order to logically justify your faith, then please take your bogus philosophical claptrap to your church where it belongs.

Ploink Ploink is very very upset now and I fear that she is going to pee on your God’s grave if you don’t stop the annoying preaching.

Nomen:

Thank you for your considerate reply.

What I am trying to get at is this. The scientific mind is composed of factual realities. Every scientific truth without exception originates in the natural world, not in the mind. This identification with reality is the hallmark of good science. Scientific thought, therefore has only the illusion of separateness from the natural world. “E=mc2”, a remarkable scientific perception, did not originate in Einstein’s mind. It pre-existed in the interrelationship between matter, energy and the speed of light. This is true of Newton’s laws of mechanics, the four forces, DNA, everything. The scientific mind reflects, and is composed of, perceived realities external to itself (while at the same time existing within those realities). Thus the entire content and process of scientific thought, observation, deduction -“scientific intelligence”- cannot be said to have any truly independent existence. The scientific mind is an accurate but partial reflection of the universe. Thus no scientific discovery, no matter how brilliant, can be claimed to be the invention of the scientist. The “intelligence” of the scientific mind is merely an imprint of the “Intelligence” of the world we perceive. We cannot claim such “intelligence” as our sole human property. Our scientific minds are merely plagiarizing the Mind resident in everything. We are rewriting a book that has already been written.

Smokey, You posted…

“I suspect much of the disagreement here is semantic.  You seem to think that your faith is a valid “reason” for your belief, while I would argue that faith and reason are antithetical.  This all depends on how one defines reason.  Among the definitions given on dictionary.com are (1)The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction and (3)An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence.  Under definition (1) you might be correct, but I think definition (3) is what is generally meant in the context of this debate and in Gary’s original comment here.  If you can adduce any fact or cause (outside of your own, personal faith) which provides a logical basis for your belief in god and/or creationism, I’d be interested to hear it.”

…I most certainly do not want to argue semantics with you, but why in the world would you say, “You seem to think that your faith is a valid “reason” for your belief”? That would be an absurd thing to say; why would you attribute such an absurd statement to me? At other times, you have successfully cut and pasted quotes of things I’ve actually said, so why do you feel the need to manufacture statements on my behalf now?

This is what I really said about faith…

“.I will admit that I was born and raised a Catholic.  I consider my faith in God to be a great gift from God; I do not take any credit for having this faith.  That disclaimer notwithstanding, I have spent a large portion of my life questioning my faith.  I have looked at the various arguments pro and con for the existence of God and I have come to the inescapable conclusion that I can not disprove the existence of God.  Furthermore, after examining all the evidence, I believe it takes a greater leap of faith to NOT believe in God.”

.…the more I think about this, Smokey, the angrier I’m becoming. Maybe you’d like to try to explain to me how you came to attribute your statement, “You seem to think that your faith is a valid “reason” for your belief”, to me?

Oh and one other thing before I continue answering your post in the serious manner it deserves(unlike some children who will remain unnamed), would you mind clarifying which of Gary’s comments you are referring to in this part of your post?

‘ Under definition (1) you might be correct, but I think definition (3) is what is generally meant in the context of this debate and in Gary’s original comment here.”

Gary has made several comments in this thread and I sincerely do not know, to which comment you are referring.

Gary, You posted…

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/ John, Your inability to grasp what I have pointed out to you, and your insistance on false dualities leaves me with little motivation to continue this discussion.  I am going fishing for the next day or two.  I will look in when I return.”

…I actually went to the talk origins website and read the Icons of Obfuscation rebuttal paper, or most of it.…and now I wanna go fishing or get drunk or both. I did not come away thinking that Wells’ article, “Survival of the Fakest”, was inaccurate, but I did think that the talkorigins article was aptly titled, in that a lot of obfuscation was present. But that is not my major interest, I only posted it in reply to Pim who asked for evidence of the Theory of Evolution being bad science. But I am very interested in what you have pointed out to me, which i have been unable to grasp. Perhaps you could clarify that for me? I realize that you don’t want to continue the discussion with me; I would point out to you that you have barely participated in any discussion with me in the first place. You haven’t answered my simple question, you know the one, Can you disprove that God exists? The one you confused with, “The “does God exist” question is irrelevant to the fact that creationism is completely at odds with reality.” And then you make the ridiculous claim of fact when the statement, “creationism is completely at odds with reality”, can only be true if God does not exist. (At this point I should clarify again, what I mean by creationism, ie. that God created all things. I will concede that some of the specific creationism theories are ridiculous). So feel free to rejoin the discussion or keep fishing, but don’t blame your disappearance from this thread on my inabilty to grasp your points.

John,

Have you tried the Google search I suggested? There are literally thousands of sites dedicated to the discussion of whether God exists or not and for you to say that there is no positive or unambiguous evidence for God’s existence just says to me that either you have not looked at the evidence or that you have already made up your mind and will not even consider the evidence.

I think you are making a mistake common to theists when debating atheists (of which I am one, as you no doubt guessed). Theists often seem to assume that we are simply ignorant of religion, and that if we were to just look, we would find god (or God). But this is terribly patronizing. I was raised in a very religious family, and I went to church (and Sunday School) every week for close to twenty years. My parents are Methodists (my father is a lapsed Catholic) and are people of strong (and unreasonable) faith. I have spent many, many hours reading, listening, and thinking about religion and God. Atheism is the informed position that I have come to. I have respect for faith, but it is, and must be, unreasonable.

So doesn’t it take an infinite amount of faith then to believe something inspite of the fact that you can never prove it?

I think you’re confused about what faith is. I don’t need to have faith that no god exists, for the same reason that I don’t rely on faith in my belief that a leprechaun will not lead me to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There are simply no reasons to believe the opposite. If you choose to define the failure to believe in things which have no rational basis as faith, so be it. To borrow Syd’s example, is it faith you rely on to reject Ploink Ploink? Or is it that Ploink Ploink is pretty ridiculous?

Here’s a challenge for you, you tell me what would constitute in your mind, positive and unambiguous evidence for the existence of God?

God’s like pornography: hard to define, but you know it when you see it. Seriously, I don’t know, I can’t imagine any single piece of evidence that would justify such a belief. What, in your view, is the evidence which does exist? Assuming you have reasons for your reasonable belief, that is.

And I will bet you that that evidence has already been presented. For instance, a reasonable person might say, well, if God came down to the earth and raised someone from the dead, I would believe in Him. But that has already happened, (see story of Lazarus in the Bible), and yet, one of the witnesses to that event, refused to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead Himself(see story of Doubting Thomas in same source).

As I said, I don’t think any single event would justify a belief in God, and I certainly don’t think the Bible is a reliable (or unbiased) source of evidence when debating the question. It is far more reasonable to conclude that the story of Lazarus is just that, a story (we can observe people making up stories and allegories in the world around us, we have no well-documented cases of people being raised from the dead that I am aware of). A belief in the literal truth of such a story is less reasonable.

But the question of whether God exists or not is the essential question of being. Who cares whether God exists? We all should care, it is the essential question of life. And granted, if God did not exist, we would have the need to create a god. But that does not mean that God does not exist. If God exists, then to ignore Him and His purposes, is to ignore the most important part of reality, and to ignore reality is irrational behavior.

Do my eyes deceive me, or are you trotting out Pascal’s wager? Pascal’s wager may be a good bet, but it’s not necessarily reasonable. It says nothing about the likelihood of God. The key line here is “If God exists.” As that is the question we are asking, I think that’s a pretty big if. If Ploink Ploink exists, you’re pretty much screwed for mocking her. Therefore, you should, as Syd suggested, immediately go make an offering at the shrine of PayPal. I suspect you will not, however, because there is no reason to believe Ploink Ploink exists (or that She is particularly vengeful and reads evolution blogs).

John,

… I most certainly do not want to argue semantics with you, but why in the world would you say, “You seem to think that your faith is a valid “reason” for your belief”? That would be an absurd thing to say; why would you attribute such an absurd statement to me

I apologize if I have misconstrued you. It was not my intent, but I’m not sure then just what your reasons are. You say:

I have looked at the various arguments pro and con for the existence of God and I have come to the inescapable conclusion that I can not disprove the existence of God. Furthermore, after examining all the evidence, I believe it takes a greater leap of faith to NOT believe in God.”

When I asked why you came to believe this, you replied:

… Because as I have said repeatedly, it takes about 2 seconds for the honest, reasonable person to admit that they can never disprove the existence of God. So doesn’t it take an infinite amount of faith then to believe something inspite of the fact that you can never prove it?

If the entirety of your reason for believing in God and His creation (trying to get back on topic here) is that they cannot be disproven, this is nothing more than faith in a different guise. It has nothing to do with reason.

…would you mind clarifying which of Gary’s comments you are referring to in this part of your post?

In his reply to your first post, Gary (May 15, 2004 03:22 PM) refers to the forces of “anti-reason.” You objected to the implication that creationists were anti-reason, which is how this all got started. In truth, Gary’s usage is more similar to definition (4)The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence. But the point remains; there are no logical, rational, or analytic reasons to believe in creationism or in god/God/Ploink Ploink. There is only faith. This is not to say that faith is necessarily bad, it’s just not reasonable.

Syd and Smokey and John:

Smokey sez:

But the point remains; there are no logical, rational, or analytic reasons to believe in creationism or in god/God/Ploink Ploink.  There is only faith.  This is not to say that faith is necessarily bad, it’s just not reasonable.

Check out my posts yesterday. By proving that Science is legitimate plagiarism of the natural world I prove the existence of Intelligent Design. Is that important? Not really. Within my “proof” lurks the idea that rationality itself is a delusion. Nomen found the argument convoluted and difficult but it’s a lot simpler and clearer than the proposed evolution of cetaceans (at least to me).

Not all religions are based on the idea of a “God”. Buddhism is an atheistic religion. It sees “Mind” as the fabricating energy permeating the universe. Am I a Buddhist? Philosophically yes, evangelistically no. To each his own. Religion is less important than truth. Which is why religions like neodarwinism and hokey creationism and scientific materialism get up my nose, though there is value in all as pointers away from falsity to fact.

Smokey is right. Blind faith is not reasonable, and can be dangerous. Everything must be tested against fact. But it is possible to prove the existence of Superintelligence, as I believe I have done.

“To see infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in a flower…” -William Blake

Jack

Jack: But it is possible to prove the existence of Superintelligence, as I believe I have done.

Wow. Nothing in this thread however provides for such supporting evidence. But perhaps I am presuming that you are making a scientific claim? Your suggestoin that you have proven something also seems to confuse the concept of how scientific inquiry works.

John, “ … I actually went to the talk origins website and read the Icons of Obfuscation rebuttal paper, or most of it . …and now I wanna go fishing or get drunk or both. I did not come away thinking that Wells’ article, “Survival of the Fakest”, was inaccurate, but I did think that the talkorigins article was aptly titled, in that a lot of obfuscation was present.”

Well, that sums it up me. John, the “science” foisted by Wells is fraudulent. If you are incapable of learning this, there is nothing I can do to help you.

If you just like to listen to those echoes in your head, I can suggest several Internet connections that are mostly dedicated to arguments between creationists and science advocates. Here are some links:

Controlled by creationists with heavy anti-science censorship:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/fo[…]mp;forumid=8

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php

http://www.christianforums.com/f70

Controlled by science supporters with no censorship:

http://members3.boardhost.com/john6[…]ml?995329051

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=[…]talk.origins

Smokey; Thanks for your apology; Yes, I did believe that you had misconstrued what I said.

You will think I am incredibly ignorant, but I was not aware of Pascal’s Wager, at least not consciously. I must have learned about it in college philosophy courses, but that was some 40 years ago. Ahhh, the wonders of the internet…I searched for Pascal’s Wager and found a multiplicity of sites.…this cut and paste is from the www.probe.org entry for PW…

“Pascal says our inability to believe is a problem of the emotions or passions. Don’t try to convince yourself by examining more proofs and evidences, he says, “but by controlling your emotions.” You want to believe but don’t know how. So follow the examples of those who “were once in bondage but who now are prepared to risk their whole life. … Follow the way by which they began. They simply behaved as though they believed” by participating in various Christian rituals. And what can be the harm? “You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, full of good works, a true and genuine friend. … I assure you that you will gain in this life, and that with every step you take along this way, you will realize you have bet on something sure and infinite which has cost you nothing.”{47} Remember that Pascal sees faith as a gift from God, and he believes that God will show Himself to whomever sincerely seeks Him.{48} By taking him up on the wager and putting yourself in a place where you are open to God, God will give you faith. He will give you sufficient light to know what is really true.”

So I guess that Pascal agrees with you, ie. that reason is not adequate for proving the existence of God. Ok, I will defer to Pascal, but I still think that reason helps me come to a belief in God.

But Pascal and I agree on faith being a gift from God. I said, “ I consider my faith in God to be a great gift from God; I do not take any credit for having this faith.”

And Pascal and I agree that “God will show Himself to whomever sincerely seeks Him.” I said, in my reply to Syd before you (Smokey) even entered this discussion, “But I can say with some degree of certainty, that you seem like an intelligent, reasonable person.  Besides the gift of faith, God also gives us other gifts, among them, the gifts of intelligence, the ability to reason, and free will.  I challenge you, Syd, and all you other NeoDarwinists/Materialists, to use the gifts God has given you.  First of all, have the humility and the good sense to admit that you can never disprove the existence of God.  Then search for Truth, God is Truth, so in searching for Truth, you are really searching for God.  And if you sincerely seek the Truth (God), God will find you.”

So Smokey, I sincerely hope that you will continue your search for the truth. I believe that “Reason” helps me to the position that God exists, ie. it is much more reasonable to me that the matter in the universe must have been created as opposed to just always exisitng. But I admit that both positions require a leap of faith, I just think it requires more faith to believe that this orderly universe just created itself. Keep on search, Smokey.

Smokey; Here is the URL of the website I quoted from…

http://www.probe.org/docs/pascal.html

Wow, what a site! And the posts are sizzling!

I hope no one minds me butting in at this point, but I must say I agree with Smokey and Syd.

I guess if a bunch of normally intelligent children were brought up on an isolated island with no religious training they would see absolutely no reason to believe in god/God. That’s because they wouldn’t see any real proof of his/His existence.

I did a bit of speed-reading and I think John says that it takes more faith to NOT believe in God. I don’t really see the reasoning behind this. If we all acted like rational humans we wouldn’t believe in things that didn’t offer SOLID, TANGIBLE proofs. At least there is solid and tangible proof that lead Darwin to make his theories.

And I don’t mean words in the Bible either. The Bible says Jesus raised someone from the dead, I think, but there is no PROOF except the Bible’s word. And there are equally and some less incredible, though much older stories in the writings of other religions (like in Buddhism) but I don’t see you believing blindly in THEM. I think anyone who takes the word of the Bible alone (or any other religious writing) possesses a large amount of extreme and blind faith. Neither do I mean random happenings, such as my computer hanging up whenever I play Morbid Angel’s “Blasphemy” or the cat I named Belial being run over by a car, or Chaminda Vaas taking a wicket in his first ball after making the sign of the cross, to be considered acts of God.

As for religious beliefs and writings, let’s say for the sake of argument that Syd has a secret army and takes over some poor uncivilised and untutored folk, and forces them to worship Ploink Ploink. In a couple of thousand years, I bet you’d find some of them believing in Ploink Ploink as firmly as you, John, believe in God today. Say that Syd goes a step further and composes a book he calls “The Word of Ploink Ploink”, and forces the barbarians to read it every Saturday between the cartoons and the wrestling. That would be THEIR Bible. Does that sound familiar?

Perhaps it’s all down to ego, and we’d much rather believe we are something special, made by God, instead of a product of millions of years’ evolution with no apparent guiding spirit, and that instead of going to heaven or hell, when we die, we die, and nothing happens to our souls and our bodies turn to dust. It’s nicer and more comforting to believe in God, believing He’s there for us, whereas it’s humbling to believe that we truly might be nothing special.

I don’t mean to offend anyone, and I’m sorry if I have. But I think it’s a little out of order for you, John, to dismiss Syd and Ploink Ploink, when you believe in God solely due to faith. And while faith is commendable and all that, it only serves in your case to overlook the need for Proof.

Have a nice day.

Maggots and cherries.

Leslie.

Leslie says, “I guess if a bunch of normally intelligent children were brought up on an isolated island with no religious training they would see absolutely no reason to believe in god/God.”

I don’t think that is true (although it is too hypothetical to use as much more than a springboard to discussion.)

My opinion, based on an anthropological study of religion in primitive societies, is that the most intuitive human viewpoint is animism - the belief that an animating spirit resides within all things. This belief is a projected anthropomorphism of our own internal experience - we see ourselves as having an inner life and we naively assume that other things also do; picture the old maps of the winds being the breath of Gods blowing across the world to get the idea.

The knowledge that there are non-animistic explanations for most (if not all) of the world’s phenomena has taken millennia to accumulate, accompanied by changes in our religious understandings about the source of the animation that we do see.

I think it is wrong to think negatively of religion as something that would go away on its own accord if it were not imposed by society, and wrong to think that it we were just “rational” through and through we would have no reason for religious belief.

One difficulty in discussing this topic is that for many people “religious belief” is synonymous with a literal interpretation of Christian belief. There are ways to have religious and spiritual beliefs that would perhaps be more inviting to people who object to some of the literal beliefs of Christianity, but that’s a subject for another time.

Leslie says, “I guess if a bunch of normally intelligent children were brought up on an isolated island with no religious training they would see absolutely no reason to believe in god/God.”

I don’t think that is true (although it is too hypothetical to use as much more than a springboard to discussion.)

My opinion, based on an anthropological study of religion in primitive societies, is that the most intuitive human viewpoint is animism - the belief that an animating spirit resides within all things. This belief is a projected anthropomorphism of our own internal experience - we see ourselves as having an inner life and we naively assume that other things also do; picture the old maps of the winds being the breath of Gods blowing across the world to get the idea.

The knowledge that there are non-animistic explanations for most (if not all) of the world’s phenomena has taken millennia to accumulate, accompanied by changes in our religious understandings about the source of the animation that we do see.

I think it is wrong to think negatively of religion as something that would go away on its own accord if it were not imposed by society, and wrong to think that it we were just “rational” through and through we would have no reason for religious belief.

One difficulty in discussing this topic is that for many people “religious belief” is synonymous with a literal interpretation of Christian belief. There are ways to have religious and spiritual beliefs that would perhaps be more inviting to people who object to some of the literal beliefs of Christianity, but that’s a subject for another time.

actually, i meant, children brought up with all the benefits of current education EXCEPT in religious matters. sorry. should have made myself clear!

up the irons.

leslie.

OK, this has long since stopped being about the welcome message. I’m closing down the comments here.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Wesley R. Elsberry published on March 23, 2004 4:30 AM.

You Missed a Spot, Dr. Dembski is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter