Research ID Wiki Opens

| 77 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Joey Campana has developed a site based on the MediaWiki software called ResearchID.org. They made a point of noting that it opened, June 22, 2006.

That’s a mere four years and one day after I announced the opening of TalkDesign.org (TD) at the end of my talk at the CSICOP Fourth World Skeptics Conference. I also pointed out on that day that “intelligent design” had failed to produce on the promised scientific basis for ID, despite the assurances of Wedge document, Rob Koons, and William Dembski that that was priority one for the ID movement.

Let’s consider some of Campana’s welcome letter:

A major priority for ResearchID.org’s administrative team is to provide a place where investigation of intelligent design can take place absent from the tumult of politics and social polemics that surround the issue of ID. A principle focus of this effort to escape the rhetoric is developing a fulcrum of discussion, so that all sides can speak the same language, instead of talking past each other as participants in debates about ID tend to do. This non-polemical environment can allow for some accumulation of some of the “critical mass” that ID theorists mention when they speak of scientific research into a new idea.

Sounds nice. What I’d like to know is where these nicely-behaving non-polemical ID “theorists” are going to come from? I can see that it will be easy to simply say that any known ID critic is off-limits on the site (forgoing any argument about individual commitment to polemics) and you would still have a lot of possible people to step in and take up a skeptical stance. But what about ID advocates? If you exclude the polemical ones, then you have pretty much eliminated the well-known names of the ID movement. Who is going to step in and provide that measured, mature, and non-rhetorical voice for ID?

Anti-ID groups are now parasitical on the claims of ID for their existence. Unwittingly, they have become pawns and foils for ID theorists and researchers. The intelligent design community is in a position where we are setting the agenda, now all we have to do is to continuing bringing more meat to the table.

I think that there is a nugget of truth here: scientists are primarily reacting to anti-science movements. I’d love to do my job well enough that I would be looking for something else to do. And I can find plenty of other stuff to write about here on PT. But other than the nugget of reaction rather than pro-active measures on the part of the scientific community, this bit of text from Campana is completely out in the weeds. One cannot “continue” to do what one has never done before.

1 TrackBack

[back to top] Prev Words Next #ads(,) major major Topic with BLOG Google search result Inspect with the Amazon Try seeing with the picture/image Inspect with the other site major Topic with BLOG [back to top] 2006-06-26 Week in Scienc... Read More

77 Comments

Joshin’ Joe Campana

The intelligent design community is in a position where we are setting the agenda, now all we have to do is to continuing bringing more meat to the table.

Oh, so that stuff is “meat”? I guess that would explain the blood. But not the smell.

Who is going to step in and provide that measured, mature, and non-rhetorical voice for ID?

Maybe one of the “honest” geniuses in Cornell’s IDEA club.

LOL!!!!!!

Anti-ID groups are now parasitical on the claims of ID for their existence.

That’s like saying the police are “parasitical” on people who break the law…

Lots of text at this site, but no content.

The List of Fundamental Facts is empty.

The list of academic courses teaching ID lists “Lehigh University, Professor Behe, no ID courses.”

What’s the point? Oh, ID is empty. Point well made!

Unwittingly, they have become pawns and foils for ID theorists and researchers.

“It’s such a flawless plan! If we attack the science community, they will be forced to defend themselves! And if they defend themselves, they’ll be doing exactly what we want, since after all our plan is to force them to defend themselves! We cannot lose!

Research ID? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Shalini BBWAD Wrote:

Research ID? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

From skimming the website, it appears what they are researching is new ways to string lots of sciency-sounding words together in a way which fills lots of space yet, when read closely, does not in fact convey any actual information. They appear to have made several breakthroughs in this field, among them the invention of the terms “ID-programmatics”, “ID-innovation detection” and “ID-technics”.

Wiki article on 'ID-technics' Wrote:

The cooperation of ID-theoretics, ID-heuristics, and ID-synergistics will be of great benefit to the applied sciences and technological development in the ID-Paradigmatic. Dembski’s informational formulations are being used as a metric for robotics and artificial intelligence. More use of ID-paradigmatic research products in technological development is to be expected. The explicit connection in ID-theoretics between biological technologies and human technologies logically leads ID researchers into the field of biomimetics, biotechnology, and nanotechnology.

Well then.

Well, here’s something for the IDers to add to their, uh, research site:

“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.” – Phillip Johnson

http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/a[…]le=evolution

They can add that to:

“Intelligent Design itself has no content” – George Gilder

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/li[…]lder?mode=PF

and

“Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” — Paul Nelson

Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 - 65.

ID’s contribution to ‘science’ seems to be the invention of new meaningless terms while avoiding doing the obvious hard work.

Luskin announced Campana as an ID theorist. Anyone has any idea what makes Campana qualified in this area? Any publications? Any contributions?

Where’s the beef?

Luskin announced Campana as an ID theorist. Anyone has any idea what makes Campana qualified in this area? Any publications? Any contributions?

Any ID theory?

They could start by giving an operational definition of Information. All the ID advocates have given so far are analogies and non-measurable definitions.

Heh, try comparing entries in wikipedia to those in researchID. I just did the entry for J.P. Moreland and found some striking similarities to each other.

Wikipedia: “Dr. Moreland is a prolific author, lecturer, and debater on a wide range of philosophical, religious, and social issues. He is best known for his contributions to contemporary philosophical apologetics, his critiques of materialism and naturalism, and his defense of Christian theism. Moreland also serves as fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture which is considered the hub of the intelligent design movement.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Moreland

ResearchID: “Dr. Moreland is a prolific author, lecturer, and debater on a wide range of philosophical, religious, and social issues. He is known for his contributions to contemporary philosophical apologetics, his critiques of materialism and naturalism, and his defense of Christian theism.” http://www.researchintelligentdesig[…].P._Moreland

I am curious if anybody else can dig up other ripped passages.

[From skimming the website, it appears what they are researching is new ways to string lots of sciency-sounding words together in a way which fills lots of space yet, when read closely, does not in fact convey any actual information.]

An easy way to fool the gullible. Make it sound nice and ‘sciencey.’

Check the David Hume entry.

Wikipedia: “David Hume (April 26, 1711 — August 25, 1776)[1] was a Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian who is one of the most important figures of Western philosophy and of the Scottish Enlightenment.

Historians most famously see Humean philosophy as a thoroughgoing form of skepticism, but many commentators have argued that the element of naturalism has no less importance in Hume’s philosophy. Hume scholarship has tended to oscillate over time between those who emphasize the skeptical side of Hume (such as the logical positivists), and those who emphasize the naturalist side (such as Don Garrett, Norman Kemp Smith, Kerri Skinner, Barry Stroud, and Galen Strawson).

Hume was heavily influenced by empiricists John Locke and George Berkeley, along with various Francophone writers such as Pierre Bayle, and various figures on the Anglophone intellectual landscape such as Isaac Newton, Samuel Clarke, Francis Hutcheson, and Joseph Butler.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

ResearchID: “David Hume (April 26, 1711 — August 25, 1776*) was a Scottish philosopher and historian. Hume was one of the most important figures in the Scottish Enlightenment, along with friends Adam Smith and Thomas Reid. Many regard Hume as the third and most radical of the so-called British Empiricists, after the English John Locke and the Anglo-Irish George Berkeley.

Historians most famously see Humean philosophy as a thoroughgoing form of skepticism, but many commentators have argued that the element of naturalism has no less importance in Hume’s philosophy.

Hume was heavily influenced by empiricists John Locke and George Berkeley, along with Francophone writers such as Pierre Bayle, and various figures on the Anglophone intellectual landscape such as Isaac Newton, Samuel Clarke, Francis Hutcheson, and Joseph Butler.” http://www.researchintelligentdesig[…]y:David_Hume

Another interesting entry is the Intelligent Design Timeline. Especially interesting is that bishop Paley gets no mention. There is a studious effort to avoid any hint of association of religion with belief that the subtlety and complexity of the natural world reflects an intelligent design. Just who are they kidding!

Hm. I tried to post something here but triggered the “I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment” filter. I didn’t do anything wrong, did I?

In their defense — at the end of each Featured Research section they have a link to criticisms. For example, under Irreducible Complexity they have a link to “A Darwinian explanation of the blood clotting cascade” by Kenneth Miller. I am cautiously optimistic that they are at least willing to acknowledge critiscim.

Another interesting entry is the Intelligent Design Timeline.

In their entry for 1903, the ID research scientists have written:

In Humanism, Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller states, “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design…”

Nit-pick: Schiller actually ends the sentence and paragraph right at that point, so it is inappropriate to put that ellipsis there. Boy, them creationists sure are a bunch of “ellipsis happy” Intelligent Design researchers, ain’t they?

Schiller does have it right, though. It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design. But then it also will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of “poof magic faeries” may be guided by an intelligent design, so big deal.

No, it’s not a serious wiki, at least not yet. Look at the entry for “Santorum Amendment.” They claim the vote on passage of the No Child Left Behind Act as the vote on the amendment. There are other problems as well, and the entry is barely more than two sentences.

Well hey,

Here’s a wiki for Intelligent Design, eh? Then sign up, log in, and put the facts in. Who wants to mention the 1987 cut-and-paste in Pandas? That seems to be missing in the timeline… if they keep removing mention of that then we can let that be known to everyone.

A principle focus of this effort to escape the rhetoric is developing a fulcrum of discussion, so that all sides can speak the same language, instead of talking past each other as participants in debates about ID tend to do.

That sounds familiar… So, has anybody made an entry for Of Pandas and People yet? Be sure to include the systematic replacement of references to creationists with variants of intelligent design (or cdesign propontentsists), and a link back to something like the relevant Panda’s Thumb, court transcripts, or NCSE entries which illustrated the tactic plainly.

Oh yes, before I forget to address the point: it’s funny how the bring up robotic design as an application for ID “theory.” I think some of the best work in the field in recent decades was the result of the application of evolutionary paradigms and concepts by AI leaders such as Rodney Brooks. Stuff like Ghenghis demonstrated that an approach modelled on evolutionary assumptions could more easily and efficiently create competent bots than the top-down approaches used previously. Any IDist cay say “but it took an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER to make it happen,” thus missing the point that the very philosophy of analyzing behavior and cognition used was one that assumed evolutionary origins and processes to arrive at intelligence in the robot. Even some of the fluffier works published by Brooks make this kind of approach clear, indicating in no uncertain terms the idea that intelligence is best modelled as a result of emergent behaviors and interaction with the environment rather than a disembodied intangible ghost in the machine. I know that there has been SOME buzz in the ID community lately about biomorphics and biomimetic trends in robotics, but that does not support the ID idea in any way shape or form. The underlying theme has generally been one of reproducing what Nature did on its own, not finding out how something could have NOT arisen naturally.

The cooperation of ID-theoretics, ID-heuristics, and ID-synergistics will be of great benefit to the applied sciences and technological development in the ID-Paradigmatic.

One form that this vapid nonsense is taking in creationist circles is reminiscent of Steve Fuller’s baloney: that belief in a universe-designing deity like the Christian God is allegedly a necessary component of the “great minds” and their discoveries which made Western culture and science so knee-slappingly awesome.

Look for this pseudo-sociological whiff of white supremacy to work its way into creationist-approved textbooks in biology and physics, if it hasn’t already.

This garbage, of course, ties right in with Lyin’ Slaveador Cordova’s neverending shpeel about how all those amazing functions of “junk DNA” would have been found oh-so-much-sooner if only the world’s scientists had asked themselves, “What would mysterious alien beings with undefined powers and goals have done when creating the genome of chimpanzees???”

The cooperation of ID-theoretics, ID-heuristics, and ID-synergistics will be of great benefit to the applied sciences and technological development in the ID-Paradigmatic.

Hmm. I wonder if the patents have been filed yet.

Instead of ResearchID.org, the nexus for researching intelligent design. they should have started their page with

Wellcome to SimScience 4

SimScience 4 Deluxe Edition is available now! Get SimScience 4 and the ID/creationism expansion pack in one convenient package. Create, grow, and breathe life into your ideal scientific environment. Fight disasters both realistic and fantastic. Govern your own virtual world as you see fit with SimScience 4.

I can see that it will be easy to simply say that any known ID critic is off-limits on the site

Or they can work it like they do the Cornell Creationists web site, which is that you can debate any topic ad infinitum as long as you never ever ask the moderators why (1) they refuse to answer certain direct questions about the sociopathology of the leading promoters of “intelligent design” and/or (2) why habitual and proven liars like Sal Cordova and their false misleading scripts are tolerated in a venue where only “civilized” discourse is allegedly permitted.

My experience is that creationists are happy to have the ID “critics” around as they don’t insist on direct, honest answers to the most obvious questions. On the other hand, they love it when folks come in to discuss the “science” which they claim underlies “irreducible complexity” and other vapid ID slogans. They love it because it provides the appearance of substance and scientific controversy.

The genuine controversy – their utter dishonesty, corrupt behavior and wholesale bigotry – they loathe discussing those aspects of the ID movement.

Anti-ID groups are now parasitical on the claims of ID for their existence. Unwittingly, they have become pawns and foils for ID theorists and researchers. The intelligent design community is in a position where we are setting the agenda, now all we have to do is to continuing bringing more meat to the table.

Which roughly equates to “they’re beating us to death - so we have them exactly where we want them.” All this needs is a “we’re lulling them into a false sense of security,” in order to be completely ludicrous.

This wiki, empty as it is, is way too little, way too late.

Can anybody see any of the ‘heavyweights’ of ID bothering to help fill up its empty expanses? If not, I can easily see it being turned into a three-ring circus by the likes of DaveScot & MikeGene.

I was also amused that Paley didn’t rate a mention on their timeline. It would seem that he was deemed “too theological,” and thus swept under the carpet.

Also amusing that the only thing they had listed under 2005 was their Dover defeat - a definite indication of how much ID is snowballing.

As I have already stated during the Intelligent Design explained: Part 2 random search discussion:

Under researchintelligentdesign.org you will only find a vacuum filled with emptiness

However, for me the issue provides a good opportunity to practice KwickXML formatting.

This non-polemical environment can allow for some accumulation of some of the “critical mass” that ID theorists mention when they speak of scientific research into a new idea.

Critical mass is a historical observation about theories that eventually become the consensus. The formation of critical mass is a consequence of the predictive accuracy of the theory; naturally, those theories that do have such predictive accuracy eventually obtain critical mass and those that do not … do not. When proponents talk of “accumulating” critical mass, it is a strong indicator of cranky pseudo-science, whether it’s ID, parapsychology, “alternative” medicine, etc. It indicates believers seeking supporting evidence, which necessarily corrupts the search, rather than going wherever the evidence leads.

There is no need to “accumulate” consensus, and attempting to do so is to elevate PR over science. Consensus will form if consensus is appropriate; as Carl Sagan noted, “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

i just wanted to see this rather poetic paul nelson quote on my screen again:

…we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions…

man, that is beautiful. it really touches me in a special place.

Well that’s great they swallowed a marketing brochure, when they manage to distill it into a SOMA pill they may have a product. D’oh they already did that…Placebo SOMA.

Just one problem their spell checker changed Non to ID

Non-informatics Non-metrics Non-heuristics Non-axiomatics Non-programmatics Non-theoretics Non-synergistics Non-detection Non-input Non-innovation detection Non-empirics Non-biotics Non-technics Non-investigatives

Joe narcissistically obsesses in empty wordplay

They should have just linked to the Gale Marketing Thesaurus

Publisher: Gale Group, Inc. Type: Thesaurus Categories: Advertising, Marketing & PR Description: The Gale Marketing thesaurus is a subset of the master Gale Business thesaurus in the narrower domain of marketing. This includes terms related to sales, consumers, merchandizing, distribution, packaging, buying and selling, product development and introduction, and types of retailers. Marketing terms pertaining to specific types of products or industries are included. This category doesn’t include terms dealing with advertising, since there is a distinct Advertising category.

ID must be some sort of new eastern mystical scientism. Science-less science.

Not they actually make any measurable claims.

Why?

They don’t want to be accused of Science Fraud

Lenny Wrote:

They just don’t have the right to teach bad science in public schools.

Sure they do — there’s no law against it. ;>

Actually I believe there are state laws against it in several places.

Actually I believe there are state laws against it in several places

hmm, interesting. Which laws in which states did you have in mind?

I can’t recall seeing a discussion about laws regarding “bad science” before.

religion in public school, of course, but not “bad science” per se.

Please, if you could be more specific i sure would like to see this detailed a bit more.

Wes wrote:

ID is not only not suitable for public schools, it is unsuitable for any school where fair play, truth, and plain dealing are considered virtues.

the Ecumenical lutherans would completey agree with that statement as well. In fact, they already did some time ago:

http://www.thelutheran.org/news/ind[…]aking%20News

Peters says neither intelligent design nor scientific creationism have fertile research programs that can match Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of evolution. “The Darwinian models have led to progressive research and new knowledge,” he says. “They also have proven themselves fertile for predicting what we would find in the fossil record, and for predicting random variation in genes that have led indirectly to research on new medicines. The Lutheran understanding of God’s creation leads us to commit ourselves to the best science. … Nothing less than hard-earned empirical truths about the natural world will measure up.”

hmm, seems this particular quote has been appropriate in several threads of late.

I apologize if folks are tiring of seeing it.

Sir Jam of Toe Wrote:

hmm, interesting. Which laws in which states did you have in mind?

I can’t recall seeing a discussion about laws regarding “bad science” before.

religion in public school, of course, but not “bad science” per se.

Please, if you could be more specific i sure would like to see this detailed a bit more.

Usually it’s teaching standards including clauses about making sure the information presented is accurate or factual. Here’s a list of science standards by state.

I could have sworn I saw either a PT entry or comment recently describing several states whose regulation of science standards included accuracy of content. Bad science, of course, would fail that requirement.

I’ve been waiting for someone to explicitly note that the content of the second quoted paragraph is inconsistent with the stated desiderata of the first quoted paragraph, as it it is itself quite polemical in tone.

Foreground/background mix up. Worth noting would be an example of ID rhetoric that isn’t self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Thanks for the link. useful reference there.

hmm, i must have missed the discussion of standards on PT. If you recall when it was, or find the direct link, post it?

Bad science, of course, would fail that requirement.

In thinking about state science standards, couldn’t somebody accuse me of teaching bad science when i do a lecture on lamarckism, even if it is in a historical context within a science class? after all, it’s not exactly accurate, though historically i guess you could say it’s “factual” (as in yeah, lamarck existed and had a specific theory).

yes, I understand that on the surface it’s a bit of a ridiculous postulate, but I could still see someone getting worked up over it. I’m only familiar with how teaching standards are applied in CA, and even then they can get arbitrary at times.

The other thing seperating “bad science” from religion is just that we have the establishment clause backing us up from the religion standpoint, but there’s nothing in the US constitution about bad science. (I think, based on many past posts by Lenny, that this is what he was referring to, without being specific.)

As we have seen, several states now have changed their science standards to allow the teaching of things not accurate nor factual (not that they won’t change back the next election, but that’s kinda the point).

so I would guess that teaching bad science is now legal; at least in those states.

and what are the realistic penalties in states where the science standards are rigorous?

Hey, maybe we should propose an ammendment to the US constitution to add a proviso for “good science” to the establishment clause?

I hear ammendments are all the rage these days. ;)

Actually I believe there are state laws against it in several places.

No, there was discussion of it in a few places, but those proposed laws never went anywhere.

Lenny: Proposed what?

Toe Jam, Esq. Wrote:

hmm, i must have missed the discussion of standards on PT. If you recall when it was, or find the direct link, post it?

Can’t recall for the life of me.

In thinking about state science standards, couldn’t somebody accuse me of teaching bad science when i do a lecture on lamarckism, even if it is in a historical context within a science class?

As long as you’re not presenting it as a valid alternative to “Darwinism” that’s supported by the evidence, but instead teaching the general idea as part of the lesson in the history of science and evolution I don’t think anybody would have a reasonable ground to stand on with such an accusation, and furthermore if the information you present is simply a factual description, context shouldn’t matter. So no. As to states passing legislation requiring ID or its “criticisms” bullshit approach, well we’ve seen state legislators ignore US Supreme Court decisions recently but that doesn’t mean they have the legal right to do it. I’m not familiar enough with the education system to say what a legitimate pentalty is.

As for amendments requiring good science? Sure, if religiously-movitated reality-deprived crap can get amendment attempts (“protection of marriage”), I don’t see why not since Evolutionism is just another religious beliefism!

I am thinking of the recently proposed law in … Wisconsin, IIRC … that would allow only peer-reviewed science in classrooms. And IIRC it had several imitators in other states.

None of them went anywhere.

Alann’s satire prompts a question I’ve wondered about for a long time. One of the key notions in neoplatonism is that of emanation. Does anyone know if this word was selected as the original name for radon as a joke based on this previous usage? (Wouldn’t it be funny if radon were divine? :))

As long as you’re not presenting it as a valid alternative to “Darwinism” that’s supported by the evidence, but instead teaching the general idea as part of the lesson in the history of science and evolution I don’t think anybody would have a reasonable ground to stand on with such an accusation, and furthermore if the information you present is simply a factual description, context shouldn’t matter.

unfortunately, science standards aren’t written like legal statutes (not that those are always written well either), so it becomes a matter of interpretation; I assume by the state board of education.

so technically, science standards are not laws, yes?

Sir T-j remarked

so technically, science standards are not laws, yes?

In Ohio they do not have the force of law. State standards get their force (in Ohio at least) because they define what will be tested in state-wide graduation tests and educational progress tests mandated by the No Lawyer Child Left Behind Act.

RBH

sparc:

Under researchintelligentdesign.org you will only find a vacuum filled with emptiness

It’s like the training manuals: “This page intentionally left blank”

ID-synergistics From ResearchID.org, a nexus for researching Intelligent Design

All divisions of the ID-paradigmatic have the potential of conceptually reseeding and refeeding themselves and each other. Informational and biological advances in our own knowledge and technology brought about by ID will enhance our ability to detect design and apply ID premises to other fields of science. The generation of new ideas by ID-theoretics and ID-heuristics, and the resulting conceptual frameworks for a field, will cast light into various scientific fields by the synergistical relationship among the other sub-fields under the ID-paradigmatic. This dynamism will bring new scientific insights. Synergistic aspects of ID premises can be clearly seen by anyone who is actually “looking under the hood” of the ID-Paradigmatic.

ID-synergistics also explores the advantages to science for an “umbrella approach” to all designed realities. This “umbrella approach” is a conceptual cooperation between sciences that study human design (engineering, technology, forensics) and those that study hypothetical design (biology, physics, cosmology). How will the resulting collaboration impact science?

It is worth noting that in at least one case this synergistic relationship has already brought utility. The fact that William Dembski’s informational formulations involved in design detection are being used as a basis for an artificial intelligence metric is very enlightening on this point. Dembski himself sees the inherent potential of ID to work synergistically, and he thought it possible that modified versions of his formulations could be used to gauge the extent of intelligence from the specificational-informational qualities of a design. So, here we have a synergistic result of ID-theoretics, ID-heuristics, ID-detection, and current technological research. This is one cue that ID can function synergistically in a repeatable fashion.

Alan Sokal, please pick up the white courtesy phone…

researchid should not be mistaken for

real ID research

research ID should not be mistaken for real

ID research

“Emotion and dogma rush in to fill the gap of uncertainty,” Philosophy of Composition, E.D. Hirsch Jr.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Wesley R. Elsberry published on June 25, 2006 7:32 PM.

Prof. Steve Steve (invisible edition) at Evolution 2006 was the previous entry in this blog.

The world’s scientists support evolution 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