Dembski: God’s best gift to intelligent design

| 145 Comments

On Uncommon Descent, Dembski shows once again evidence of the historical roots of Intelligent Design and Creationism. In fact, he seems to be suggesting that ID and religious faith are quite intertwined, as much of the evidence already suggested.

Dembski is commenting on Richard Dawkins’ “Root of all Evil” documentary on Channel 4 in the UK.

Dembski Wrote:

You’ve got to wonder what the staffers at the NCSE are thinking when they go to such lengths to assure the public that there’s no problem reconciling evolution and religious faith, only to have Richard Dawkins come along and utter the following (taken from his BBC program “The Root of All Evil?”):

So why this obsession with Dawkins? The answer is obvious, since the Dover trial, Intelligent Design has been exposed as being a religious concept. Which means that while ID cannot compete in the realm of science, it can at least attempt the obvious namely to make its religious foundations more explicit and try to taint science with religious faith or atheism. After all, their only chance may not be scientific acceptance but rather a theological acceptance of Intelligent Design and/or rejection of Evolutionary Theory a being irreconcilable with religious faith. While the latter approaches are as doomed as ID’s attempt to pretend to be scientifically relevant, it is all that is left. Dembski has returned to theology

Dembski Wrote:

“Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute … I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it’s not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world.”

Even more ‘shockingly’ is the following suggestion:

Dembski Wrote:

Anyone who hasn’t seen this two-part program by Dawkins needs to see it. I understand it is not available in this country (and for good reason — given the sensibilities of Americans, it would be a public relations disaster for evolution this side of the Atlantic). I’ve got the two-part program as two 260Mbyte wmv files. If someone has unlimited bandwidth and is willing to upload the files (perhaps at lower resolution) on, say, a Cayman server (where there may be fewer worries about copyrights), let me know.

Oh well…

One may wonder about Dembski’s fascination with Dawkins. Is it because Dawkins beats Dembski in a Google fight 9 million to 700,000? Or is it because “Richard Dawkins” beats “William Dembski” 4.3 million to 370,000 ? Or is it because Dawkins’ books beat Dembski’s books in Amazon rankings?

For instance Dembski’s ‘seminal works’ “No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Hardcover)” ranks 240,000 or “The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) (Paperback) “ ranks 280,000 versus Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (Paperback) “ ranking 2,700 or even “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (Paperback) “ which ranks 92,000.

In the end it seems clear to me that this is a battle of Dembski’s Christian Apologetics and Dawkins’ atheism and that it has little to do with science. But it surely helps solidify Judge Jones’ ruling on Intelligent Design.

Judge Jones Wrote:

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

If ID was truly interested in the quality of education and teaching the controversy, it would have since long taken a stand on such concepts as ‘the age of the earth’. But that would only serve to damage creationism’s ‘big tent’. So much for the idea that this is all about the quality of science education.

145 Comments

I started viewing the Dawkins’ documentary and found it to be quite interesting. While I do not agree with all Dawkins has to say and while some of his statements are a bit too generic for my taste, I find his comments to be quite enlightening. In addition, Dawkins has done more for science than much of any other ID activist as far as I can tell.

Which means that while ID cannot compete in the realm of science, it can at least attempt the obvious namely to make its religious foundations more explicit and try to taint science with religious faith or atheism.

And Donald is kind enough to give us a demonstration of this, about once per month.

PvM,

You apparently don’t know much about Amazon.com rankings. The sale of one book can catapult its ranking from 800,00 to 2,700 in the span of a few minutes as the rankings are based on hourly sales and are updated as such. You would have to be persistant enough to watch those rankings over a long period of time to be able to use them as a gauge of overall popularity.

well, we did predict Carol would pop in soon,

just in a different thread!

LOL.

you just couldn’t resist, could you Carol?

Perhaps Carol is the one unfamiliar with rankings on Amazon?

As an added service for customers, authors, publishers, artists, labels, and studios, we show how items in our catalog are selling. The lower the number, the higher the sales for that particular item. The calculation is based on Amazon.com sales and is updated each hour to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.com. We hope you find the Amazon.com Sales Rank interesting!

I am sure Carol understands the meaning of historical.

Or

Amazon’s sales rank is calculated as a rolling figure. It’s based on sales over a recent period. I can’t remember if the period is 60 or 90 days, though. It is, however, weighted by overall total sales (they put this back in after having dropped it for a couple of years), keeping long-term big sellers afloat even after their sharp sales peaks have leveled out.

Not all books are recalculated with the same frequency. The top 1,000 are recalculated hourly. The next block (up to 100,000, I think) are recalculated weekly, while the rest get checked monthly. However, a sudden burst in sales is enough to force an immediate recalculation on a 100,000+ book. This is probably based on a percentage of overall sales, but that’s just a guess.

I also hope Carol understands ‘tongue in cheek’

c’mon! it’s obvious why she posted that. she wants to come up with a theory to explain the poor showing of Landa’s book, and to assure the rest of us (indirectly of course) that it really is doing quite well, despite anything you could determine from Amazon stats.

Dembski’s obsession with Dawkin’s is almost pathalogical. He needs Dawkin’s to proove his assertion that evolution is atheistic. Sadly for Dembski (and his followers), they just can’t seem to figure out that Dawkin’s metaphysical views (or lack thereof) are his own, not officially representative of scientific thought in general (as far as atheism goes), and in that light, largely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary biology as a science. Arguing that Dawkin’s prooves that evolution is atheistic is akin to arguing that all vegetarians are fascist genocidal lunatics because Hitler was a vegetarian. Really, I think we need to give Dembski the “Basil Fawlty” award for logic. Perhaps an endowed chair in intellectual burlesque?

ahhh, another Towers fan.

brings back memories.

PvM,

The Amazon.com system currently in effect, in simple English, places books sold in the most recent hour in the highest tier (lowest numbered rankings), those that sold in the most recent two hours in the next tier, and so on. Then, within those in a particular tier, such as those that sold in the last hour, the books are additionally ranked by sales in the last two hours, in the last three hours, and so on. THAT is the meaning of “historical” as practiced by Amazon. The net effect is that the sale of one book can take a book from a million to a thousand. Unless you watched Dembski’s and Dawkin’s books over time, you just do not know which has sold more books.

I see, given Landa’s ranking, the statistics suggest 0.2 book/week sold. Not bad though :-)

#829,893 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books) Yesterday: #821,225 in Books

On closer scrutiny, the book seems to be marginally ahead of ‘currently unavailable ones’

:-)

I’m an atheist, and unfortunately I’m not a big fan of Dawkins’ atheist evangelism. I saw his series and while it raised some great points I was underwhelmed with the whole.

Here’s why.

The problem as I see it is not religion. It is the *cognitive style* of *fundamentalist* religion. The problem is dogmatism, authority-worship, and excessive emotional attachment to ideology.

Actually, religion has a pretty good term for this cognitive style that I think can be safely appropriated: idolatry. More specifically, the cognitive style I’m referring to is the idolatry of dogma, doctrine, authority, and/or text. (pick any combination of those)

Militant Communists (mostly) did not believe in God, and yet they did many if not all of the same things that fundamentalists do: invading neighbors, killing infidels, waging a dishonest propaganda war, etc. They acted like fundamentalists because they *were* fundamentalists. They *thought like* fundamentalists!

The problem isn’t belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se. A basically rational and decent person can be a theist, but a basically rational person cannot be an “ideolater.”

Dawkins on the other hand claims that violence, irrational behavior, etc. is a result of theism and that the removal of theism would cure this pathology. I cannot disagree more. History has shown that when you take religion away from those who have a basically fundamentalist style of thinking they merely latch onto some other form of secular fundamentalism and resume the crusade.

If you could reach into Dembski’s cranium and remove his belief in God, I’m sure he would latch onto and start propagandizing for some other kind of all-encompassing ideological crusade. He would do that because that’s how he thinks. He views ideas like sports teams rather than tools, and will always apply his intellect merely to booster his side rather than to search for truth. He might become a Marxist, or a Green ideologue, or even a militant atheist!

There are a number of reasons I’m an atheist, first and foremost being that I see no evidence for an anthropic deity. However I don’t think that we must embark on some crusade to eradicate all belief in a God.

But, I do think that we *should* embark on a crusade to eradicate ideology-idolatry and fundamentalism. This style of thinking should be considered a mental illness and treated as such.

P.S. Don’t give me that “but you’re thinking just like this by arguing this!” baloney folks. That’s like saying that laws against rape are themselves a form of rape because they force people to submit to the absence of rape.

I’m also not apologizing for Dembski by any means. He’s basically a propagandist for fundamentalism as well as for an authoritarian political ideology.

The Amazon.com system currently in effect, in simple English, places books sold in the most recent hour in the highest tier (lowest numbered rankings), those that sold in the most recent two hours in the next tier, and so on. Then, within those in a particular tier, such as those that sold in the last hour, the books are additionally ranked by sales in the last two hours, in the last three hours, and so on. THAT is the meaning of “historical” as practiced by Amazon. The net effect is that the sale of one book can take a book from a million to a thousand. Unless you watched Dembski’s and Dawkin’s books over time, you just do not know which has sold more books.

Once again you seem to be wrong when compared to the facts. Is this the best you can do, ignore the factual evidence presented? Support your claim… Buy Landa’s book and see what it does for its ranking :-)

In fact, a quick Google search would have saved you from making these silly claims.

On closer scrutiny, the book seems to be marginally ahead of ‘currently unavailable ones’

lol

Carol Clouser, thanks for the giggle of the weekend. Your haste to disagree with anything and everything on here exposes you yet again. With you pushing book(s) all the time, I would have thought you’d be familiar with how these things work.

mplavcan suggested Dembski be given a chair Perhaps an endowed chair in intellectual burlesque?

Yes.… ever since the Ministry of Silly Walks was closed down the chances of developing an Anglo-American silly walk went out the door.

And on theology?

He’s worse at that than he is at pseudoscience.

In fact Dawkins IS A BETTER THEOLOGIAN than Dembski by light years.

Expect Dembski to retreat to trying to pick holes in theology from Lenny’s Pizza delivery boy.

The problem isn’t belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se. A basically rational and decent person can be a theist, but a basically rational person cannot be an “ideolater.”

Dawkins on the other hand claims that violence, irrational behavior, etc. is a result of theism and that the removal of theism would cure this pathology. I cannot disagree more. History has shown that when you take religion away from those who have a basically fundamentalist style of thinking they merely latch onto some other form of secular fundamentalism and resume the crusade.

Myself, and I think most here would agree with the first paragraph (with notable exceptions). I also think the removal of theism won’t cure a fundie, or the psychology that leans towards this, by itself, anyway.

However, one could argue that removal of alcohol from an alcoholic is a good first step towards curing alcholism. the second step being a transitional program of some kind, combined with counseling.

Moreover, I wouldn’t recommend banning the sale of alcohol in order to cure alcoholics (that’s been tried before :) ). Instead, we remove the alcoholic from the influence, and go from there.

The problem isn’t belief in God. The problem is a way of thinking. The cognitive style and psychology of fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se.

I quite agree.

But, I do think that we *should* embark on a crusade to eradicate ideology-idolatry and fundamentalism. This style of thinking should be considered a mental illness and treated as such.

I couldn’t agree more. have you checked out some of the recent trolls over in the ATBC area like AFDave?

a perfect case study for exactly what you are talking about here. go take a gander if you haven’t already.

If Dembski wants to make the argument that theism and evolution are incompatible, he’s going to have to do it philosophically. Because doing so based on the religious beliefs of biologists is beyond stupid. The fact is that biologists can be pooled from every religion on earth, and from nonreligious people. The fact is that IDists are all fundamentalists except save from maybe a Jew or two they have hidden away and perhaps a couple of muslims. Philosophically he at least has a chance to make the argument.

Hmm - facilitating the theft of copyrighted material (and illegal possession of the same). Has anyone contacted the FBI yet…?

Seriously though, I wonder what his supposedly morally upright paymasters at the Seminary think of this behaviour?

Look, basically if you don’t believe in god then there’s nothing to stop you stealing and distributing other people’s intellectual property… heathens.

*cough*

It’s not theft, it’s “Street theatre”.

I’d really never heard of this Dawkins person before I started following the evolution/creation debate quite closely. (I had heard of the book The Selfish Gene, but was not clearly aware of its author.) Since Dawkins’ philosophical/theological (atheological?) writings seem, from what I have seen, to mostly be of interest to Christians (such as Dembski, who appears here to be exhorting the readers of his blog to watch a pro-atheism film… hm), I don’t really see any particular reason to read them or really care about them much.

I do find the larger situation quite fascinating, though. Rarely if ever can creation science proponents be convinced that there is something interesting about the fact that nearly all, if not all, important “Intelligent Design” commentators are on the record somewhere as saying that their motivations in promoting ID are religious. Even the media usually seems to shy away from directly addressing the religious entanglements of individual ID proponents– probably sensing that singling commentators out for their personal religion is a dangerous direction to head in. But one scientist, Mr. Dawkins, chooses to publicly speak on the subject of religion, and this by itself becomes this huge, scandalous thing, something which apparently reflects badly on the entire science community and which blogs on all sides of creation/evolution debate (as well as, apparently, Guardian columnists) write on at length.

Particularly interesting is the reaction of Dembski, who criticises the NSCE for the actions of a British scientist who does not work for the NSCE, because the latter scientist spoke out on the subject of religion in a way Dembski considers improper– while Dembski himself is working at a Southern Baptist theological seminary. Hm.

In other news, I notice that the newest post on Uncommon Descent begins with:

Woody Allen’s latest film, Match Point, illustrates the depths to which Darwinian nihilism is dragging popular culture.

Well that just says it all, doesn’t it?

Sigh, yes… I have no idea what’s up with Dembski…

I try to make it a point NOT to read Uncommon Descent, but I distinctly remember a post up there some while back in which Dembski lamented that more theologists hadn’t taken up ID. It really isn’t a mystery. Just as Paley’s argument, crystalizing the idea firmly and classically, and the resulting debate over it eventually quelched the intellectual basis for Design Argument in biology during and era of strengthening empiricism and scientific progress, so too did it largely knock the feet out from under Argument from Design in philosophical circles. If anything, this resurgence of Design Argument in the clothing of ID will probably just repeat that result on a lesser scale. I think we can optimistically say it’s already having that effect on anti-evolution Creationism in general, especially with the publicity surrounding the Dover decision. As to the Dawkins/Dembski relationship, meh. One of the reasons why I like Dr. Pennock’s Tower of Babel is because he’s very hands-off when it comes to making personal theological assertions, and seems more interested in simply giving people the bare facts about the philosophy of science and evolution. In fact I’ve seen Creationists get frustrated precisely because he never made his personal religious beliefs known through his books, which is always a good thing in my book.

If you want to see Dembski do a really silly walk, see him in Horizon - War on Science. It came with my copy of The Root of all Evil and it talks about intelligent design. In it, demsbki is walking very intently down a railroad track toward the camera. A few cars pass in front of him. I could help but chuckle because it made him seem so serious. Then I imagined big red shoes…

Well, his pants were too short already…

PvM Wrote:

As an added service for customers, authors, publishers, artists, labels, and studios, we show how items in our catalog are selling. The lower the number, the higher the sales for that particular item. The calculation is based on Amazon.com sales and is updated each hour to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.com. We hope you find the Amazon.com Sales Rank interesting!

Yes, but if you read it in the original Hebrew…

Unless you watched Dembski’s and Dawkin’s books over time, you just do not know which has sold more books.

Only an utter moron would not know which has sold more books.

Re:”When I read this, I had to pick my jaw up from the floor. How on Earth can you say this about “most non Christian people” and then fail to apply the same reasoning to atheists???”

It was a collective term Aureola. I was referring to all people who don’t make any profession of faith. It’s just that in the conversations that I’ve had with these people, they don’t generally point me to Greek philosophers of several thousand years ago etc. as a reason for their beliefs. I didn’t intend to cause any offence.

Peter:

I was not offended. I was just wondering, since atheists are “non Christians” (just as much as we are “non Jews”, “non Hindus”, “non Pagans” etc.), why you failed to realize that we, too, basically do what society expects and rewards, what our peers expect and reward, what our elders taught us, etc.

It is a minority of atheists who explore the philosophical, historical, logical premises and consequences of our stance. Most atheists simply live, exactly like most theists. (Hence, I suspect, Registered User’s “MYOB”, rude as it may have appeared to you: why should we have to ‘justify’ our lack of a particular belief?).

Re Lenny: there are many, many Christians, even in this country (NI) who are not fundies, and who hold a liberal view on the creation/evolution controversy (if you could call it that). For want of repeating myself, these are the very people that have to be kept on board. As I have said, the existence of whether or not God exists is not the issue here.

I invite anyone to search this thread and find out who introduced the Book of Genesis (or whichever book you intended) into the discussion.

As I say , it was a genuine query and not an attempt to “preach” at anyone. Christian’s lives revolve around biblical principles (like forgiveness for instance, especially when we feel like taking revenge) so I had wondered how people who were atheists had come to their moral conclusions.

There you go again. We have already established that your knowledge of the Bible is so weak you don’t know which book the 10 commandments are in, and you fail to acknowledge that the Bible condones slavery, stoning, killing of witches, etc., and yet you continue to maintain that your life revolves around “Biblical principles”.

If reading comprehension is a problem for you, take a look at the Brick Testament to find out more about the morality in the Bible.

that Brick Testament thing is pretty neat.

“your knowledge of the Bible is so weak you don’t know which book the 10 commandments are in”

Genesis. Don’t patronise me Wamba. Christians take many of their principles from the teachings of Jesus (hence the name Christian)

“the Bible condones slavery, stoning, killing of witches, etc., and yet you continue to maintain that your life revolves around “Biblical principles”.”

So notable atheists down through the years haven’t committed any of these crimes against humanity ? What about the great pagan empires around the same time such as the Babylonians, Romans, Alexander the great etc.Don’t forget that many of these practices eg slavery were abolished by Christians such as Wilberforce etc.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.u[…]berforce.htm

Most Christians would find your comments offensive Wamba. Now I know how Carol feels !

“There you go again”

There you go again Wamba ! You are obviously a very bitter person !

Peter:

I am very sorry for you, but you won’t find the 10 commandments in Genesis. That was Wamba’s point, and your failure to recognize this elementary mistake is telling.

By the way, neither Genesis nor the rest of the Old Testament contain “the teachings of Jesus” (that’s what the four Gospels claim to do).

Also, the point is not what atheists have done or failed to do (although you are labelling as “atheists” empires that most certainly weren’t: Babylonians, Romans and Macedonians were polytheistic, not atheistic); the point is that you claim to draw moral inspiration from a book which includes many vile moral teachings (those Wamba listed, for instance); and the fact that eventually even Christians recognized that slavery was immoral hardly compensates for the fact that for many, many centuries Christians took slavery for granted, since it was in the Bible.

Peter, I must concur with Wamba: you don’t appear to know the book you claim to use as the source of your guidance.

Oh, and by the way, the Roman Empire became unofficially Christian in 313 AD, and officially so in 380 AD. Do you think that public executions, slavery, etc. etc. ceased, or diminished, after that?

Not one iota, I’m afraid.

“I am very sorry for you, but you won’t find the 10 commandments in Genesis. That was Wamba’s point, and your failure to recognize this elementary mistake is telling”

OK Aureola. So it’s Exodus. I have read both books and I was being silly. I see now what now you are both getting at. Point taken Aureola and Wamba ! However, there’s no need to get nasty. The man who never made a mistake never made anything as they say !

I wasn’t saying that Christianity did make any difference. All I was trying to point out was that this was the norm at the time and probably the Isrealites weren’t doing anything different from anyone else when they were in control.

Peter:

I wasn’t saying that Christianity did make any difference. All I was trying to point out was that this was the norm at the time and probably the Isrealites weren’t doing anything different from anyone else when they were in control.

Exactly. Christianity did not make any difference. So much for the supposed “source of morality”.

As to the Israelites, I agree once again with you. They did nothing different from anyone else.

So, to recap:

1) the Old Testament did nothing to enhance morality for the Israelites; 2) the Bible (OT + NT) did nothing to enhance morality for the Roman Empire.

And that’s the “Good Book”, the moral compass for eternity, the Greatest Story Ever Told?

Boggles the mind, really.

OK Aureola. So it’s Exodus. I have read both books and I was being silly. I see now what now you are both getting at. Point taken Aureola and Wamba ! However, there’s no need to get nasty. The man who never made a mistake never made anything as they say

hey, no offense, but it does suggest that maybe you should re-read the thing.

maybe look at versions other than the King James one, too?

maybe check out what’s happened in biblical research in the last 20 + years as well.

new “gospels” discovered, etc.

think about the innerancy of the KJB in light of the history not only of how it came to be, but in the light of recent discoveries as well.

All I’m saying is, as a scientist i really rely on the primary literature to form the basis of my opinions on things scientific, rather than second-hand textbooks.

relying on the KJB is a bit like relying on a very outdated textbook.

Re Lenny: there are many, many Christians, even in this country (NI) who are not fundies, and who hold a liberal view on the creation/evolution controversy (if you could call it that). For want of repeating myself, these are the very people that have to be kept on board. As I have said, the existence of whether or not God exists is not the issue here.

Preachin’ to the choir here, dude. ;)

think about the innerancy of the KJB in light of the history not only of how it came to be, but in the light of recent discoveries as well.

There is, of course, a growing movement amongst fundies to dump the King James Version, since King James was a homosexual.

The bigots might have to find another idol to worship.

There is, of course, a growing movement amongst fundies to dump the King James Version, since King James was a homosexual.

The bigots might have to find another idol to worship.

LOL, yeah the bible is a little too much to include under that big tent of theirs.

The ironic thing is - fundies usually discard the really nice parts of the Bible (by that, I mean the parts that I would have no compulsion in letting my own children read) in favour of the foulest parts, those rooted in late Bronze - early Iron age “my sky daddy is bigger than yours, nyaah, nyaah, nyaah” mentality.

…instead of “compulsion”, read “hesitation” there.

Fingers much too fast, as usual.

Well, people tend to create god in their own image. Talk to all the touchie-feelie liberal Christians, and they like to talk about “love thy neighbor” and “how you treat the least of them is how you treat me”, whose message is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

The fundies prefer their god to be a harsh, judgemental, intolerant prick, whose only message is “do what I tell you, or ELSE”. Just like *they* are. (shrug)

There is, of course, a growing movement amongst fundies to dump the King James Version, since King James was a homosexual.

Seriously? If so, that’s awesome. I love intolerent fundies. I just saw in the News and Observer yestidy, the state baptists aren’t going to recognize churches which allow gays. No, not as preachers or whatever, allowing them in the congregation.

state baptists aren’t going to recognize churches which allow gays. No, not as preachers or whatever, allowing them in the congregation.

Apparently the fundies don’t want to, uh, eat and drink with, uh, publicans and sinners. … .

I remember someone saying something about that, once . … . .

I guess the fundies never read that chapter.

I’m going to look for another source on that. I want to believe it, but I need a little assurance. It’s impossible to know if stuff like this

Speaking at a press conference Gary Bauer said, “I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way”.

is real or a spoof, without side information.

Well, as I’ve often noted, it’s hard to tell the spoof from the real. There is NOTHING so idiotic or silly that can be said as satire, that hasn’t been said by one fundie or another in all seriousness.

I’m going to look for another source on that

I found it in:

Kimberly Blaker, ed, The Fundamentals of Extremism; The Christian Right in America, New Boston Books, 2003, p. 26.

good enough for me!

i am happy mostly - though terribly sick at times - the medicine is not a perfect fix - i think some weed would help but caant find any - Kant find any…

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on May 21, 2006 2:02 PM.

Genomics and the vacuity of Intelligent Design was the previous entry in this blog.

Casey Luskin’s Breathtaking Hypocrisy 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