Lecture Planned on Intelligent Design

| 114 Comments

Despite the complaints by ID proponents that Intelligent Design is not about religion or faith, they seem to have a hard time convincing even their fellow creationists.

In Lecture Planned on Intelligent Design we read the following

In the current controversy between scientific proponents and religious opponents of evolution, Hugh Ross concedes that scientists have a valid point.

“The most ubiquitous complaint from scientists is that evolution-bashers don’t have the courage to say what their model of the origin of life is. Frankly, I have to agree. All they’re doing is making negative arguments,” Ross said from his office in California. “We don’t critique the evolution model, we present our model.”

It only gets better:

Ross developed what he considers a scientifically testable theory – he prefers the word “model” – of the origins of life and the universe that fully conforms with biblical teachings, he said. He has spent most of the last 20 years trying to persuade both skeptical scientists and fellowbelievers that not only is his theory true, it can be taught in public schools because it satisfies the requirements of secular courts.

Ross will present a lecture, “Intelligent Design Evidence,” Wednesday at All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Lakeland. The author or coauthor of several books, including the forthcoming “Putting Creation to the Test” (NavPress), Ross will try to make the case that Christianity can be scientifically demonstrated to be true.

The Rev. Reid Hensarling, associate rector of All Saints, said Ross’ lecture will contribute to the debate about intelligent design.

“People are interested in the subject of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The interplay between science and theology has always fascinated people,” he said.

Ross does realize, as apparantly did the Discovery Institute when it hastily filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller case, that the lack of scientific relevance makes the conclusion that ID is merely religious almost inevitable.

Ross differs from some proponents of intelligent design in his insistence that claims must be specific, testable and able to make predictions about the discovery of future evidence. That is the weakness of the school board’s position in the case now being tried in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, he said.

“The way intelligent design is being argued … the court has no option but to try it on religious merits. Even within the context of a Christian nation, it’s a violation of the First Amendment,” he said.

The lack of scientific relevance has placed the Wedge strategy at significant risk now that the courts may have to rule on the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design.

Perhaps Ross is the closest ID proponents may come to deserving the term ‘scientist’?

“If you could prove there is no beginning to the universe, that would be fatal. Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective,” he said.

So certain is Ross that he’s right, he’s willing to risk more than his theory. He’s willing to stake his faith on it.

“If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ,” he said.

He acknowledges it’s a risk not all churchgoers are willing to make.

“You make that kind of comment in a church and jaws drop. But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can’t prove that Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead, our faith has no basis,” he said.

Hensarling, the associate rector of All Saints, said most church members don’t have the scientific background to make that kind of leap.

“But for a scientist, that is a bold statement. The interesting thing about Dr. Ross is that he’s coming at the proof of Christianity from creation,” he said.

Linder said it’s important for people to hear Ross because the media often portrays advocates of intelligent design as anything but intelligent.

“Television makes them look like dimwitted people. There are scientists who believe in intelligent design,” she said.

114 Comments

Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective,”

laughable. reminds me of Hovind’s offer. I’m sure that the only thing Ross is REALLY sure of is that nobody will ever be able to prove to HIM that humans were not specially created.

the media often portrays advocates of intelligent design as anything but intelligent.

What media is Hensarling referring to? The media I’m familiar with portrays advocates of intelligent design as “determined” foes of a “perceived scientific orthodoxy” who feel that their “worldview” and “religion” is “marginalized” and “under attack” by an “increasingly secular” society.

I don’t think I’ve heard the usual media sources refer to creationist peddlers as “charlatans”, “promoters of ignorance,” “stooges,” or “professional liars” yet. I’m looking forward to that day, though!

Ross:

But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can’t prove that Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead, our faith has no basis,

What verse do you suppose he’s referring to?

What verse do you suppose he’s referring to?

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

“Television makes them look like dimwitted people.

Just putting them on tv makes them look dimwitted.

Lecture Planned on Intelligent Design

By Cary McMullen Ledger Religion Editor

QED?

“We compare the biblical model with the evolutionary model and ask which better explains the record of nature as we see it today. Which has better success at making predictions?” Ross said

What more needs to be said?

They just don’t get it.

Incredible.

Instead of fixing the hole in the roof:- Their faulty literal reading They are hell bent on changing the sky. It’s so laughable its sad.

The only thing they are going to achieve by “Questioning God” is the slow destruction of their reality removed faith.

They don’t have a creative bone in their body, they completely lack imagination.(are they human?)

God help us!

Yeats again.

Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Remember, this may seem laughable to many but Ross argues quite convincingly that his ideas are far more scientific than those of the Intelligent Design Creationist movement. While I agree that it is all about relative merrits here, Ross’s comments show that

1. He considers most of the Intelligent Design arguments to be scientifically vacuous 2. He is very forthcoming that Intelligent Design is all about religion

At least Ross has a ‘theory’ of intelligent design, founded in biblical roots, but it’s far more than Intelligent Design proponents at large can claim.

And since the ID movement is one big tent, I am sure that it will invite Ross and his theory into it…

Just putting them on tv makes them look dimwitted.

indeed

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

May I ask the participants to please refrain from using ad hominems and either add to the thread or use the bathroom wall.

I mean it. At this moment I have but three options

a. Edit the posting (too much work) b. Add it to our spam filter (effectively removing the ability of the author to further post) (too drastic) c. Delete the posting (by elimination the best option)

Until the ‘move to bathroom wall’ option has been restored, I would like to ask all to please focus on the topic. There is so much good to discuss here…

Please, please, please

Plus they lack any common sense.

If he is able to see the error of the logic in ID thus some logical ability proven, however why is there not the same level of intelligence applied to scripture.

That requires something much more than simple logic it requires intuition, research and good old common sense.

So certain is Ross that he’s right, he’s willing to risk more than his theory. He’s willing to stake his faith on it.

“If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ,” he said.

Why would he reconsider his commitment to Jesus Christ?

Does he have some other agenda ?

he came to the Christian faith as a young adult and decided that not only is there no conflict between science and faith, science can actually prove faith’s claims

Uh, if science can prove his faith’s claims, then it conflicts with numerous other faith’s claims. I’ve never understood this power of some religions to so confound the minds of even Ph.D’s in astronomy.

So certain is Ross that he’s right, he’s willing to risk more than his theory. He’s willing to stake his faith on it.

“If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ,” he said.

He acknowledges it’s a risk not all churchgoers are willing to make.

The author’s credulity is remarkable. Ross is running no more risk than anyone who bets that you can’t prove to their satisfaction something they simply aren’t willing to believe.

Ross said: But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can’t prove that Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead, our faith has no basis…

St. Paul wrote: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

Not being a believer myself, I’m a little reluctant to wade into this. But I have to ask: the quoted scripture says nothing about being able to prove Christ rose from the dead. Did Paul write nothing more supportive of Ross’s position than that?

PvM:

I’m still unsure which specific aspects of this you wish to address?

Is it the fact that this appears to be a new tactic that would require different strategies?

The “science” involved appears to be no better than any other “science” presented by creationists, but i can only base that on the second hand information presented in the article. Do you have more direct access to the specifics of Ross’ “model”?

It would appear that Dr. Ross is not very popular among the fundies, Answersingenesis.com, christiananswers.net and trueorgins.org all have rather harsh criticisms of his work. They appear to be upset that he rejects young earth. So, he gets brownie points for that. He’s also a former minister of evangelism, so he loses said brownie points, and has unfortunately found himself in the negatives.

The key point here is “ And if Christ has not been raised “

to where ? in your heart ?

OT:

you know, I found a more interesting article to my thinking on the ledger:

Making Schools Their Business Why would dozens of busy business people be inclined to volunteer time and money to get involved with the local school system? Because the products the school system is churning out will one day be used by local businesses in the form of employees.

makes me think it’s about damn time that Universities start looking at local school systems in the same way. I think most Universities take it for granted that K-12’s function is to produce well trained individuals that will enter the university and eventually become well trained professors, but I don’t think that’s actually the case. No more than K-12 is designed to produce recruits for the construction business, for example.

a University is a business, like any other. It’s about time they looked more at high school students as being “the products the school system is churning out”. I’m not saying that all universities ignore this simple fact, and there are several outreach programs run by universities just for this reason, but there could be far more.

/OT

@Tiax:

have you found any better elucidation of his model anywhere?

His web site is reasonstobelieve.org - no idea if it has what you’re looking for, though.

Why is it IDiots always parrot back the arguments made against them without actually DOING ANY OF THE THINGS THEY CLAIM?

Sir_Toejam Wrote:

@Tiax:

have you found any better elucidation of his model anywhere?

I’ve checked every promising link on the first two pages of a Google Search for Hugh Ross, and found a wealth of negative criticisms of his work, primarily coming from young-earth creationists. I’m willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt, and find a neutral explanation of his views, preferably from an organization with which he is affliated. He appears to be the founder of the site reasons.org, but the list of their beliefs ( http://www.reasons.org/about/sof.shtml ) contains nothing in the way of a scientific model of the universe. The closest I have came to an explanation is here : http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap[…]/index.shtml , but this is more a list of answers for specific questions, rather than a presentation of a theory.

All in all, it would appear that he is quite devoutly Christian, and is more correctly categorized as an apologeticist than a scientist.

I think that we’re looking at the wrong hypotheses to test to refute creationism. From a political standpoint, I think that the following hypothesis seems better:

ID/Creationism advocates appear to believe that the Bible, a book written by nomadic goat herders living in tents, is the best scientific text available, and should take precedence over books written by 21st century scientists using modern laboratories.

If the ID/Creationist hypothesis were correct, shouldn’t the Bedouins have conquered the world by now? Or for that matter, shouldn’t the Taliban, living in a fairly goat-based system, have been able to hold off the US military and their useless “scientific” GPS weaponry?

Most importantly, I don’t recall the Bible saying anything about “computers” or the “internet.” Since I presume that the ID/Creationism advocates would prefer to use only Biblically correct “science,” why the hell do they have their own webpages?

i looked all over the reasons.org site, and can find no specific model listed anywhere. perhaps it is in one of his popular press books?

I have to throw this back to PvM.

If you want us to take Ross seriously, and foster discussion about his ideas, I personally need to see a 1sthand source of those arguments, hopefully in the form of whatever specific “model” he has developed.

All in all, it would appear that he is quite devoutly Christian, and is more correctly categorized as an apologeticist than a scientist

well, considering that is his actual current employment title:

Minister of Apologetics, Sierra Madre Congregational Church, 1987 to the present.

I’d have to say that’s a pretty accurate characterization!

note that that is NOT saying he is not now still a scientist.

He has a decent set of publications, including at least one in Nature (1970).

I don’t see why necessarily that he couldn’t be both. Science has strict rules, but anybody can play so long as they follow them.

I’ve a hard time respecting a theory that is initially presented in a popular science book. Certainly, such books are quite capable of holding valuable information, and I am a big fan of numerous such books, especially those by Hawking and Dawkins. However, it is absurd to ask the scientific community to take a theory seriously when it has bypassed the criticism of that same community by not participating in the peer-review process, and has gone straight to book print. Although it is certainly possible to enlist reviewers for a book, there is gaurantee of their quality, as was seen with Behe’s unfortunate attempts to claim peer-review status.

If Dr. Ross’s primary concern was getting word out about this model of his, we all would’ve managed to find a very clear explanation by now. Instead, I’ve found a thorough regurgitation of every creation-apologetics claim in the books through this website of his.

At least Ross has a ‘theory’ of intelligent design, founded in biblical roots, but it’s far more than Intelligent Design proponents at large can claim.

actually, PvM, he prefers to use the term “model” instead of theory, probably for a very good reason, don’t you think?

I’ve a hard time respecting a theory that is initially presented in a popular science book

it does have a tendency to make one more than a bit skeptical, right off the bat.

Ross said: But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can’t prove that Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead, our faith has no basis…

St. Paul wrote: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

Not being a believer myself, I’m a little reluctant to wade into this. But I have to ask: the quoted scripture says nothing about being able to prove Christ rose from the dead. Did Paul write nothing more supportive of Ross’s position than that?

Ross seems to be confusing not being able to prove P with proving not P – a rather common error, the basis of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Norman Doering: I am indeed referring to the Pratchett novel. Dictionary.com defines polemic as: “A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.”, and that’s pretty much how I read Small Gods (well, maybe not controversial, but certainly attacking that sort of mindset).

well, based on PvM’s original post, i still feel unsure as to exactly what point he wished to discuss. I’m surprised, since he IS around, that he has not popped in to at least make a comment or clarify what he wanted to discuss specifically.

whatever.

That said, I’m not so sure that Ross can’t be — or isn’t already — convinced that humans were “not specially created,” as in “are biologically related to other species.” What I am sure of, is that if so, he simply won’t admit it.

point taken.

do you think the same of Hovind? if not, you can see where without further clarification, one might come to the same conclusion about anybody making claims that are similar in form.

It seems apparent that residual UFO’s, in one or more ways, must be associated with the activities of demons.” (pages 122-123).

yikes.

can anyone spin this in a positive light?

i sure can’t.

The link you want is probably this one.

Hey Heddle, do you expect me to take this seriously?

uh, i don’t think heddle provided an opinion, one way or the other (for once, anyway), and he merely tried to answer the request to locate Ross’ ‘model’ as mentioned in the press article.

so.. having said that, do folks think this is the best representation of a synthesis of Ross’ model?

Sir_Toejam,

You are correct, I did not offer an opinion. My last two opinions were mangled by PZ. I have asked the PT management to delete those two posts, but so far they have not. In my view, PT has no right assuming the high-road in regards to other sites deleting comments if they allow comments to be mangled. In fact, deleting comments is more in line with standard practice; newspapers decide not to print letters to the editor, but they never print them with all the vowels removed. Since my name is still attached to those two comments, and they no longer reflect what I intended, I have, as I mentioned, asked PT to delete them. In my opinion it is highly unprofessional to mangle someone’s posting, although it generates a nice juvenile guffaw that no doubt strokes the ego of the mangler.

My only recourse is to stop offering opinion, since I don’t want it mangled. Now that is obviously impotent as a threat, and may indeed be a cause for celebration, given I often get into long exchanges resulting in threads wandering off target. You can decide whether you feel good that a “troll” has been silenced or bad that PT resorts to such tactics.

Mike Walker Wrote:

What would be interesting would be to poll Creationists about which version of Creationism they believe. Given a choice between:

Intelligent Design Ross’s Old Earth AIG’s Young Earth

I suspect that AIG would win, Ross would come second, and a small minority would plump for ID. Sure the IDists would argue that the poll was invalid, since ID is a “big tent” containing both of the others, but I doubt that very many creationists really understand that concept, and even if they do, they’re would not very comfortable about claiming “Designer Agnosticism”.

I’m not so sure that ID would come in last. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” of ID has a lot of appeal to non scientists. In its quest to cover up the flaws in the mutually contradictory creationisms, ID seems to have replaced mostly OEC. If the questions are specific enough, the creationist on the street may admit to OEC, maybe even common descent to boot. But if they think that they age of the earth and relatedness of species are relatively unimportant, they have been stung by the ID bug. As to “Designer Agnosticism”, even YECs seem to understand and reluctantly accept that it is politically necessary if public education is involved. Besides, chief IDers do admit that they think that the designer is God, especially when speaking to religious groups.

“If you could prove there is no beginning to the universe, that would be fatal. Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective,” he said. So certain is Ross that he’s right, he’s willing to risk more than his theory. He’s willing to stake his faith on it. “If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ,” he said.

The poor guy. Someone please introduce him to Thomas Aquinas…

:)

Heddle is given an inch, and decides to use it for a grandstanding oratory.

congrats, whatever small credibility i had given you personally has been uterlly eliminated.

I saw the posts you made that were disemvoweled. aside from the nature of their content, which was quite rank and offensive, the “argument” you presented was irrelevant and capricious.

remember that unlike dembski, it’s up to each thread poster to decide what they themselves feel should be the rules of that thread. It’s not hard to read your posts, even when disemvoweled, and the thread moderator made his opnion known about your posts quite clearly by doing so.

even folks who don’t know your past history of posting behavior can see that.

I personally welcome any substantive content you wish to contribute wrt to Ross’ model (if you think that the link you posted is in fact, representative of it), but using your freedom to post to whine about your treatment in another thread will i’m sure only encourage the moderator of this thread to do the same thing to you here.

grow up, would ya?

Russell wrote:

Being, myself, an alumnus of UCD (can’t say “proud” alumnus, in this context) I note that Ross joins Behe and Dembski as speakers recently honored by speaking engagements there. What I haven’t been able to figure out, though, is who keeps inviting these clowns to pollute the groves of academe with their pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualism?

I finished up at UC Davis a couple of years ago. There’s a Christian group on campus affiliated with an evangelical church just west of town. I’m not sure where the church gets the money for it, but they brought in an ID speaker every year while I was a grad student at Davis. Probably they’re still at it.

STJ,

Give me a break, the content was not “rank and offensive,” it used the word “Gestapo” (bit did not call anyone Gestapo). How many have been called on here (by name–including me) Taliban, child abuser, etc. without the comment being mangled.

The thread moderator cowardly mangled my posts rather than deleting them, effectively publishing something I didn’t write, and left my name on the post. If Dembski deletes comments he doesn’t like–well that is more honest and more ethical. If you had a letter to the paper published without vowels would you feel satisfied that people could still read it?

And I can’t complain on that thread, or PZ will just do the same thing.

and you still commit the same error here. don’t be surprised when PvM does the same thing to you here.

again, if it were me, i would have laready disemvoweled your second grandstanding post.

do you actually have anything substantive to say on topic?

if not, why don’t you just go whine somewhere else?

you and Dave Scott can have fun whining together over at Dembski’s blog; it seems very appropriate there.

you had a letter to the paper published without vowels would you feel satisfied that people could still read it

lol, i would certainly take the hint more than you seem to be able to.

Ken Ham said something very similar to Hugh Ross in an interview with the BBC when he was in Belfast last March. The interviewer (William Crawley) asked Ham what was at stake if it was proved beyond doubt that evolution was true. Ham stated that all the major christian doctrines were founded in Genesis 1-11. “So if evolution were true then the whole of Christianity would collapse” asked Crawley. “Absolutely” replied Ham. I think all Christians should be alarmed when so called leaders of the evangelical church make statements like this. I wonder where the church would be now if they had staked everything on a geo-centric solar system or on a flat Earth ?

Sir_Toejam Wrote:

uh, i don’t think heddle provided an opinion, one way or the other (for once, anyway), and he merely tried to answer the request to locate Ross’ ‘model’ as mentioned in the press article.

I think it is a fair question to ask the resident CIDer if he supports the Reasons to Believe “model” (i.e. expects me to take it seriously, too). I had initially intended to show up the vacuity of each of these twenty “tests”, but then I thought “why bother” if nobody actually swallows this crap, anyway.

Sir_Toejam Wrote:

so.. having said that, do folks think this is the best representation of a synthesis of Ross’ model?

These twenty “tests” are represented exactly as Hugh Ross gives them; god only knows how he derives these predictions from Genesis 1.

I also don’t believe for one instant that Ross is even capable of rejecting his faith over contradictary scientific evidence. If he were, he’d have become an atheist/agnostic years ago.

Mike, Are you sure that you meant to say that? Does science disprove god?

No one said anything about proof. Ross has clearly stated that his beliefs are based on the factuality of the bible, and that if it weren’t factual he would have to abandon those beliefs. Well, it’s obviously not factual.

Here’s another irrelevant question: does science disprove Santa Claus? We clearly don’t believe things merely because they haven’t been disproven. And some people feel that there’s no more reason to believe in God than in Santa Claus. Consider an alternate universe in which the Bible had never been written. Ask yourself where Ross’s beliefs, or yours, would have come from.

My only recourse is to stop offering opinion

I think we can all live with that, Heddle.

I had initially intended to show up the vacuity of each of these twenty “tests”, but then I thought “why bother” if nobody actually swallows this crap, anyway.

yes, looking at the page that heddle linked to I was also puzzled as to what would be worthy of discussion in it.

that’s why i keep asking PvM to clarify exactly what it was he wanted to discuss when he said:

There is so much good to discuss here…

I’m still confused.

“The most ubiquitous complaint from scientists is that evolution-bashers don’t have the courage to say what their model of the origin of life is. Frankly, I have to agree. All they’re doing is making negative arguments,” Ross said from his office in California.

“Most ubiquitous.” Ugh. What a wanker.

Hey Heddle, do you agree with Ross about the flying saucers?

Ten years ago when I was in college I was in the youth group at Sierra Madre Congregational, where Ross works as a pastor. He spoke to about 20 of us at a weekend retreat. He was explaining why God had to kill every living creature (except insects and really small things?) during the flood. Apparently, even a dog owned by a wicked person was tainted by the wickedness and needed to be wiped from the earth. He told a modern day story of a friend who’d received a shirt from some kind of witch. The friend became bothered about having the shirt and threw it in the fire. When he did, he heard tiny little screams. I’m not making this up. The friend, and Ross, were convinced the shirt had become possessed or evil on its own and needed to be destroyed.

hahahahha The ancient Myths are full of these stories. It takes some real effort to decode these “symbols” and understand them in the “subject sense” That man need to see an Exorcist/Psychiatrist/ Priest /Pastor in that order.. Then do a course in “Understanding Myth”

Ross is a true idolater

Bah… and understand them in the “subjective sense”

“Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

Why does everyone here like that poem so much. It’s very relevant, if you ask me, to the present time. I wouldn’t be suprised if there is some enormous rethinking of values soon to occur ( though I doubt it’s the Nietzschean-Yeats thing.)

“ID/Creationism advocates appear to believe that the Bible, a book written by nomadic goat herders living in tents, is the best scientific text available, and should take precedence over books written by 21st century scientists using modern laboratories.”

Your arguement is circular, it only works if I didn’t help write the bible, that’s one of the things your arguement is trying to establish.

“And that’s just the beginning! If you don’t believe in God, then (according to Phil Johnson and the rest of the Modern Creationist Posse) you have no “basis” on which to “ground” your “morals” and no “basis” for “rational” decision-making. Why? Because (according to these brilliant philosopher/preachers) the “necessary alternative” to a purpose-filled universe is one in which “we” (meaning, everything in the universe, including the chemicals in our brains) are “meaningless” chance collisions of atoms. “science can actually prove faith’s claims”

That’s similar to Alvin’s evolutionary arugement against naturalism.

“Turning salvation into a question of intelligence? If you thought the idea that some people would go to hell because they were too rich or too arrogant to accept Christ was bad, how about the idea that some people go to hell because they are not smart enough to understand Ross’ proof. Too bad for our brothers and sisters with Down’s syndrome, eh?”

That’s a really, really good point, I might have to change my policies.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on November 13, 2005 9:38 PM.

After the Bar Closes was the previous entry in this blog.

IA and ID in the WSJ; update on CfS 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 4.381

Site Meter