The world’s scientists support evolution

| 133 Comments

This is big.

The world’s leading scientists yesterday urged schools to stop denying the facts of evolution amid controversy over the teaching of creationism.

The national science academies of 67 countries - including the UK’s Royal Society - issued a joint statement warning that scientific evidence about the origins of life was being “concealed, denied, or confused”. It urged parents and teachers to provide children with the facts about the origins and evolution of life on Earth.

This is a nice foil to a recent post on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views blog,” noting that their list of “dissenting scientists” has now exceeded 600 individuals, and touting that more international scientists are signing on:

(Continued at Aetiology…)

133 Comments

This is big.

I get it, it’s like when Carson used to do the Tonight Show. OK, I’m game.

How.. Big.. Is.. It?

Hey, we’ve got an international coalition too! We have a computer technician in Texas, a law professor in California, a dentist in Burkina Faso, a philosopher in England…well, we thought we had him…we act like we still have him…a hydrologist in Djibouti, several demolitions experts in Afghanistan, a Palestinian veterenarian, a really excellent Tapas chef in Portugal, a metallurgist in Rwanda…

For some occasions, a realy excellent Tapas chef is worth more than all the science academies in the world.

This is not one of those occasions.

their list of “dissenting scientists” has now exceeded 600 individuals

I wonder who will be their number 666? ;-)

What’s a Tapas?

A Tapas is a mythical creature created by the FSM. A Tapas Chef butchers these animals to prepare various exotic treats.

Tapas are great. Spanish “finger food” of sorts. (Like dim sum, you eat a bunch of different small dishes, though of course the food itself is much different.)

But be careful when you ask someone to go to a tapas bar, that they don’t think you’re asking them to the topless bar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapas

Oh, Stephen beat me to it. I had that exact misunderstanding once – was told “I didn’t realize you objected so strongly to tapas!”

Haha. Oops.

Can one get Tapas in a Topless Bar? What about the reverse?

Lou FCD: you find a tapas bar with topless people, you let me know, OK?

Cobra Lily on Wilshire is a great place: http://losangeles.citysearch.com/pr[…]ra_lily.html

Corkscrew:

I’m workin’ the Google now. If I find one in London, we’ll meet up with Dean and Kyu when I drop in this summer.

:)

And if I may hijack Tara’s thread for just one more comment, I’d like to put in a shameless plug for Science, Just Science, a Brit outfit that shares the goals of PT and could really use some moral support from the PT crowd, even if it’s just to drop in and say “attaboy”. Lots of PT regulars and Dr. Tara fans over there. (Sorry Doc, I won’t interrupt no more.)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 2, column 2, byte 163 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Comment #108547

Posted by Lou FCD on June 26, 2006 03:50 PM (e) | kill

Can one get Tapas in a Topless Bar?

You can get Tatas in a Topless Bar.

Speaking of supporting Evolution though, I posted this in the religious rant thread, but it goes here better:

There’s a great article over at Stanford Medicine Magazine on Evolution and the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax. Seems well laid out, well supported and argued. The comments are pretty sad, though. Even our old friend Larry Farfarman spouted his usual claptrap.

(sigh)

Anyways, check it out, it’s a good read.

Oh, and Hat tip goes to Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy for the link on that.

It seems kind of futile to complain that science (which plays by rules of evidence, replication, peer review, and research into the unknown), has failed to keep up its side in the PR battle against a position that consists of *nothing but* PR. The DI, however profoundly dishonest or inconsistent, needs only to follow the rules of PR: Identify which lies people are most eager to hear, and produce them. Evidence and inference need not apply.

This strategy is probably not best opposed by competing PR campaigns telling people things they do NOT want to hear. That’s a blueprint for failure. The only workable scientific strategy lies in improving public science education. An educated public is inoculated against DI propaganda.

And of course the DI is painfully aware of this. They aren’t spending their funding preaching in churches, but rather backing creationist candidates for state school boards. They know their enemy isn’t pro-science PR, their enemy is knowledge. They work tirelessly and creatively to stifle it.

The only workable scientific strategy lies in improving public science education.

Not just science education — most Americans can’t even find Iraq on a world map. Heck, many of them can’t even find the USA.

Alas, the problem is that, no matter how much Americans chatter about how much they want to “improve education”, the simple fact of the matter is that we really don’t care about it at all. No one wants to do anything for it, and especially no one wants to *pay* for it.

But then, the purpose of the American education system is not to actually educate anyone. It’s simply to produce the next generation of minimum-wage service-sector workers and provide them with the bare minimum of knowledge they need to correctly fry a cheeseburger and give correct change, most of the time.

The US doesn’t want to produce its own educated people. Why bother? We can simply import them from elsewhere.

Kind of like the Ptolomeic Pharoahs, who couldn’t speak, read or write Egyptian and didn’t need to – they just hired scribes to do all that for them.

Since we’re speaking of PR fights …

I usually try to avoid picking on people who are obviously mentally ill, but in THIS case I’m quite willing to make the exception:

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_st[…]4090621.html

Excerpt:

Republican congressional hopeful John Jacob believes the devil is impeding his efforts to unseat five-term Representative Chris Cannon.

Just one teensy little gripe: Creationism “includes” a belief in a young Earth and direct special creation of all life? While I’m glad that sort of language didn’t make it into the actual text of the signed statement, I’m a bit disappointed that it’s been used in the article. It gives the DI et al more of that “We’re not Creationism because ID doesn’t mean YEC” bologna.

Tara C. Smith Wrote:

600 individuals versus the national science academies of 67 countries. How seriously pathetic.

600 individuals, of which fewer than 200 are biologists, and if a brief random survey is representative, the great majority of them will admit to being seriously misled into signing such an ambiguous “dissent”. About all that remains are some familiar names who have previously devoted their careers to peddling pseudoscience, and a handful of their closest cheerleaders. You probably can count the YECs on one hand.

Meanwhile “only” ~10,000 members of Christian clergy signed a not-so-ambiguous statement endorsing evolution. Must be that “thou shalt not bear false witness” thing.

Wheels Wrote:

Just one teensy little gripe: Creationism “includes” a belief in a young Earth and direct special creation of all life? While I’m glad that sort of language didn’t make it into the actual text of the signed statement, I’m a bit disappointed that it’s been used in the article. It gives the DI et al more of that “We’re not Creationism because ID doesn’t mean YEC” bologna.

That’s no “teensy little gripe.” IMO it’s a big reason that the ID scam has gotten so much mileage with the public, if not the courts.

ID certainly indirectly promotes YEC. But not because IDers personally believe any of it, but because YECs are the majority of the anti-evolution public, and IDers need their support. So unlike OEC, which occasionally challenges YEC, ID’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach covers up the flaws and contradictions, and keeps peace under the big tent. If IDers thought that there was a morsel of truth to any of the “positive” claims of YEC, they’d be all over them.

It would have been better if stated “Creationism includes a variety of different beliefs about the age of the earth and the origin of life, some which say that we’ve only been around for six to ten thousand years.” As for not expecting ID to weigh in on the Age of the Earth, well in some respects that’s only fair since biological ID is supposed to deal with life only and “cosmological” ID is basically just the anthropic principle, neither of which have much to do with dating the planet. Insisting that IDists make statements on billions versus thousands is rather like saying that Evolution is the theory that the Universe started with a Big Bang, etc. I definitely think that exposing the YEC among the ID promoters is a legitimate pursuit, but only as a means of further disrobing the movement as theology in disguise. Otherwise the passer-by may see an act of hypocracy where “Evolutionists” insist that Big Bang isn’t important to Evolution, but then demand that IDists make a claim about the Old or the Young Earth.

Frank J wrote in Comment #108671

“600 individuals, of which fewer than 200 are biologists, and if a brief random survey is representative, the great majority of them will admit to being seriously misled into signing such an ambiguous “dissent”. About all that remains are some familiar names who have previously devoted their careers to peddling pseudoscience, and a handful of their closest cheerleaders. You probably can count the YECs on one hand.”

I would class myself as a widely-read layman. I consider myself fully committed to the cause of science, evolution, RM+NS, common descent etc.

Now, I have always been a little bit worried about ID’s 600 dissenting scientists. Not because they might have a case, but because despite such overwhelming evidence, despite their training and knowledge, they persist in their opinions. To me such a position is indefensible and I want to know more about them. For a start, how many of them are academics in the life sciences? I think the opinions of anybody else - physicists, engineers at al - can be viewed as carrying just as much weight as a layman and can therefore be ignored. We should at least treat such folk as a separate group to the biologists. So how many are left? Frank J thinks fewer than than 200. I’d like to see a breakdown of the 200 into their disciplines and their specialties, and their standing in the scientific community. I’d like to know more about their real qualifications. I’d like to see what their reasons are for rejecting mainstream science. I’d like to see just how many of them now feel they are misrepresented, and how many would like to recant. And I’d especially like to know what their position is on Christianity. Can we use such informed knowledge to weed out the those with a motive - cranks, fundamentalist Christians, the disaffected, the bogus? Once we pare the group down an irreducible core, can look at those who are left and determine what their reasonings, not motives, are? Just what is the scientific value of what remains? What can we learn from such an exercise? If, for an example, the bulk of the core comprises physicians, can we start to ask why that should be? (Assuming, that is, that medicine counts as a ‘life science’ - is it?)

I feel that unless such as exercise is carried out, and maintained thereafter, we are meekly handing over to the IDists a vacant and fertile area in which another of their lies can proliferate.

Alan Bird: Since medicine attempts to change (or prevent) the world rather than understand it, medicine is a technology (or a technic, if one means medical practice rather than medical knowledge production).

(if) you find a tapas bar with topless people, you let me know, OK?

- 03:52 PM

Cobra Lily on Wilshire is a great place:

- 04:01 PM

Is the internet truly marvelous, or what?

Speaking of supporting Evolution though, I posted this in the religious rant thread, but it goes here better:

There’s a great article over at Stanford Medicine Magazine on Evolution and the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax. Seems well laid out, well supported and argued. The comments are pretty sad, though. Even our old friend Larry Farfarman spouted his usual claptrap.

(sigh)

Anyways, check it out, it’s a good read.

Oh, and Hat tip goes to Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy for the link on that.

Ahem

:)

Here’s the problem with evolution and science in general: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38575

Here is the solution to that problem: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

The evolution of life is one thing. The origin of life is quite another. What’s the latest in research going on in that area? Also, to the Rev Dr: didn’t Cleopatra teach herself Egyptian? I thought I had read somewhere that she had.

Norrrm!:

Here is the solution to that problem: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

Does this guy get funding from DI?

“Because their theories were considered religious, not because they lacked evidence.”

Uh, Mats, where IS this evidence of this non-religious observable scientifically testable all powerful extra-universal creator? Oh, sorry, forgot -

“I see no reason in providing scientific evidence against Darwinism.”

Frank,

Mats wrote: Fence sitters like Ken Miller are looked down by both communities.

Miller is not a “fence sitter” by any definition, and not “looked down” by hardly any “evolutionists”.

Sure he is. He believes that the result of God’s creative activity is not detectable, contradicting his own faith only to please the atheistic Darwinists.

And, yes, fence sitters are looked down by both sides:

“Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, gets a walk-on role as the liberal voice of religion, but mostly it’s the fundamentalists of all faiths who fall under Dawkins’s scrutiny. “They are profoundly wrong,” he says, “but in some ways I have more sympathy with their views than I do with the so-called more liberal wings. At least the fundamentalists haven’t tried to dilute their message.

And don’t miss:

“A Nature editorial concludes that the effort to demonstrate that “God’s hand shap[ed] the course of evolution” (i.e., theistic evolution) “is bad news for researchers. … it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason” and must be actively opposed (Nature, 2005, p. 1053).”

Never overlook Bill Provine:

“Provine concludes the answer to the question, “Does an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position” exist? is clearly no. Provine adds that he believes the only way to be a theistic evolutionist is to check your brains “at the church house door” (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

So, yes, theistic evolutionists think that they are pleasing both sides, but in reality both sides despise their mentality.

He is a devout Christian who defends good science and exposes anti-evolution pseudoscience without taking the bait and criticizing religion.

Of course, Darwinists define “devout Christian” as those who accept evoluti…err…”good science”.

IDers occasionally admit that Miller is a greater adversary than, say Dawkins.

Dawkins is a disaster for the Darwinian side, so being a better adversary than him is not much of a feat. The only diference between Miller and other Darwinists is that Miller considers himself to be a Catholic (strangely enough, he doesn’t hold the view of his own church which says that the human mind is able to detect design.)

Thanks, Mats, for establishing so clearly that (1) ID is nothing but fundamentalist apologetics, (2) IDers are just lying to us when they claim it’s not, and (3) Judge Jones was perfectly correct to rule that it is.

In case you haven’t noticed, it’s illegal to teach fundamentalist apologetics in public school science classrooms. Sorry if you don’t like that.

Perhaps you’d be happier in a country that didn’t have separation of church and state? May I suggest Iran?

Re “The tactic “God wouldn’t do it like this, THEREFORE it evolved” is very common among Darwinists.”

That’s a response to the use of that argument against science.

Re “Besides, Staffan, things either “made themselves” or Someone else made them (Law of Excluded Middle).”

Nope, “excluded middle” applies only between a statement and its negation. Since made by natural processes is neither “made themselves” nor “made by somebody else”, “excluded middle” does not apply here.

Re “Since arguments against Darwinism is evidence FOR special creation,”

That’s assuming no other alternatives. (It’s also assuming that creation would be “special” if it occurred, which is an unwarrented assumption.)

Re “I am sure that, if you try hard enough, you can find resources where evidence for Creationism is given.

Then why don’t Creationists ever get around to doing that?

Re “Oh, and don’t bother posting that unguided evolution is in agreement with belief in the Creator God.”

The two aren’t inconsistent with each other, except to one who thinks a God couldn’t use natural processes, which contradicts the traditional beliefs about God.

Re “and that is why critical analysis of evolution is discouraged.”

Critical analysis is done by RESEARCHERS, every time the concept is used in their work, not by schoolkids who are just beginning to learn the basic concepts. Want critical analysis? Do the research and publish the results.

Re “Darwinists are TOTALLY against the scientific (not religious) scrutiny of their theory.”

Scientists are always scrutinizing theory, every time they do any research that uses it. Finding a major hole in a major theory is one of the biggest successes a scientist can have in a career - they’re not going to forgo that to prop up a theory if they have evidence that would overturn it.

Re “is a clear testimony that in the Darwinian mind, there are only two options: creation or unguided evolution.”

What exactly is a “Darwinian mind”, and where does it exist except in the minds of people who dislike the concept of evolution? And could somebody perhaps explain why “creation” would even necessarily require guidance of the process?

Henry

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Wrote:

Thanks, Mats, for establishing so clearly that (1) ID is nothing but fundamentalist apologetics..

But unlike classic creationism, it is a “new age” kind of fundamentalist apologetics, due to it’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. And I don’t mean regarding the designer’s identity, but to to the all-important “what the designer did and when” that would make it qualify as an alternative to evolution. Mats keeps reminding us of that by evading the inconvenient questions.

Given the post-Dover ID antics, however, (e.g. the Coulter connection) you may want to stop thanking everyone for “establishing” the part that ID seems to be giving up denying.

Okay, mats, I’ll admit I’m confused. Are you a creationist, or an intelligent design creationist? Do you believe the designer is the Christian god? Sorry, can’t teach that in science class. (shrug) Can’t teach Buddhism in science class either. Do you believe intelligent design is science? Then do some science . Establish a solid theory (and quoting chapter and verse isn’t a solid theory, neither is “That sure looks complicated”, neither is “That’s a really big number!”), make predictions, test the predictions, open your analyses to peer review in the scientific community instead of lobbying politicians. Don’t tell us, show us!

Or stop whining and go away.

Mats: My post about the false dichotomy was in regard to your claim about the Dissent from a straw man version of Darwinism statement, where you said

Mats Wrote:

I repeat once again, NOTHING in the dissent list shows approval of ANY competing theory.

Please compare that with what you said a few posts down:

Mats Wrote:

Since arguments against Darwinism is evidence FOR special creation…

You can’t have it both ways, so which is it?

Mats Wrote:

“A Nature editorial concludes that the effort to demonstrate that “God’s hand shap[ed] the course of evolution” (i.e., theistic evolution) “is bad news for researchers.… it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason” and must be actively opposed (Nature, 2005, p. 1053).”

As it happens, I have access to the editorial in Nature, and guess what? What you say about it is a lie (perhaps you didn’t know that, but whoever you got it from probably did). The quote isn’t about theistic evolution, but about creationism in the shape of Intelligent Design, and that is obvious to anyone who actually reads the editorial (it was April 28, 2005, by the way):

Scientists tend to tune out when they hear the words ‘intelligent design’. The concept, which endeavours to show God’s hand shaping the course of evolution, is being promoted in parts of Europe and, more significantly, has recently become popular among Christian fundamentalists who want religion taught in US secondary schools. … This is bad news for researchers. Unlike ‘creation science’, which uses the Bible as its guide, intelligent design tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature. This approach makes it less theologically heavy-handed than its predecessor, but it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason.

Using distorted and out-of-context quotes is a common creationist “tool”, known as quote mining. I suspect that most of the rest of the quotes you supply also are mined, but I have neither the time, the energy nor the burden of proof to check their accuracy. But, since you brought them up, why don’t you prove that they are correct, complete and in context, e.g. by giving us the entire quote plus the surrounding sentences. (An online reference would be nice, but it isn’t necessary).

Or you could retract them.

Mats wrote;

Id is not taught in public schools, so where do you want us to have a critical eye upon it?

Um, I don’t know, maybe we could start with the Discovery Institutes vaunted research program actually publishing some research. That might be a good place to start, since they could get the data out without worrying about being muzzled by the great mainstream science cabal.

But even so, ID scientists are NOT afraid to have their theory under analysis.

Secondly, no ID scientist ever said to “ignore the holes in their theory”.

Whoa! Finally, there’s a theory of Intelligent Design! Woo Hoo! I’ve been waiting for years to see this! Show me! Tell me where I can find the details and the supporting evidence. It’s not on the Research Origins Wiki yet, so it must be new, where do I look?

Teacher: “well, that’s interesting, but this is science class, so let’s compare these theories by using evidence. Evolution has fossils, morphology, and DNA, what does creation have?”

Fossils, morphology and DNA. Evolutionists and Creationists have the same evidence, but different approach to it. The problem is not with the evidence but with the interpretation.

Again, Woo Hoo! There’s now an ID theory that puts things like 400 million year old half-fish/half-amphibian fossils into more context than “The Devil put it there to mislead us”? or “You simply got every single date wrong on every fossil ever found.”

Praytell, now that there’s an explanation, what does ID make of the common structures, vestigial organs, and the clear DNA tree of everything alive today?

Now that they have an explanation I’d love to hear it.

Thanks once again for showing the two models approach (creation or evolution). So much for the myth that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, ya got me there. Somehow, deep down, I do feel it might be difficult to reconcile “Here’s an explanation using an observable natural process that’s still going on” with “Poof! Let there be everything”.

So the 2ND Law thermodynamics is not problem for unguided evolution?

(psst…) (conspiratorial whisper) Um, actually, if you leaf through the UD site, you’ll find that the ID community itself no longer advises ID supporters to use the 2nd law argument because it’s been so widely discredited it makes people who use it look waaaaay uninformed. And that’s a premier ID source talking. Just though you ought to know.

“You mean the lower back, the knee, the prostate, appendix, too-small birth canal, broken vitamin C gene, detaching retinas? Which one of these perfect examples are you talking about

Thanks once again for showing how Darwinists use the “bad design” mindset as evidence AGAINST Creation, NOT evidence for evolution.

Umm, again, I’m confused here. You’re telling me that there is a creationist explanation for why an omnipotent, intelligent designer made so many bad choices when he designed man, his “perfect creation?

That’s pretty weird, because all these years, the various design flaws in living things have been seen as some of the strongest evidence for evolution (the “Quit bitchin’ and run what ya’ brung” theory).

Design is so obvious that the only way for you to avoid the logical conclusion (that it was created) is to DENY CONSTANTLY that it was not design.

Again, tis is the the crux of the argument. Anything so obvious, so irrefutable, so universally true should be absolutely trivial to prove with empirical evidence.

The sky is Blue, here’s the picture.

The earth is round, Here’s a live phone call with someone in the night on the other side.

One plus one equals two. Here’s two rocks

The bigger the truth the easier the proof.

Still, as of this morning, the only thing ID hangs on is “we can’t explain the bacterial flagellum” from Behe, and some math from Dembski that even Dembski himself declines to clarify.

C’mon Mats, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

Mats;

Isabelle Bourdial, “Adieu Lucy,” Science et Vie, May 1999 Søren Løvtrup , Darwinism: The Refutation of A Myth … 1987, Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower …, 1970,

1970!

Man had just set foot on the moon, Computers filled a room, and people thought leisure suits were cool!

Clearly we were less evolved then. Or designed. WHatver. More importantly, there were 36 years of hominid fossils waiting to be discovered.

I’m more impressed with the 1999 reference, though (if it’s the piece I recall seeing before) the crux of the article (Australopithecus may not the the ancestor) is a pretty far cry from your conclusion (this blows the entire human family tree out of the water).

You got one thing right, though, in the intervening 7 years, there still rages a great academic battle over where the various hominid ancestors go on the family tree.

Seems to me that Evolutionists are the ones who have “all sorts of different interpretations - many conflicting timelines, many different conclusions” about the evidence.

Which seems at odds with your previous opinion that science never challenges the status quo?

However, Darwinists are TOTALLY against the scientific (not religious) scrutiny of their theory. hmmmmmmmm..

How can there be a conspiracy of silence and a raging public brawl all at the same time?

Anyway, back on track… Yup. A healthy debate rages. But that’s only because evolution is continuously challenged, reviewed, refined.

Even — dare I say it — critically analyzed all the time.

And guess what, the more we look at it, the more solid it seems. We may argue about the shape of the tree or the arrangement of this branch or that, but that’s a far cry from the claim that science thinks that there was no tree.

(psst…) (conspiratorial whisper) Um, actually, if you leaf through the UD site, you’ll find that the ID community itself no longer advises ID supporters to use the 2nd law argument because it’s been so widely discredited it makes people who use it look waaaaay uninformed. And that’s a premier ID source talking. Just though you ought to know.

Sometimes they say that. But sometimes they say the SLoT prohibits evolution: http://www.uncommondescent.com/inde[…]archives/884 They have no coherent message. See also: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/hunch/hunch.html

Mats,

Soren Lovtrup was not an evolution denier. He’s a saltationist. He opposed the idea that organisms evolved gradually over time by means of the slow accumulation of simple mutations and the selection of the more fit outcomes. This does not make him a creationist.

To use his quote in the way you did is intellectually dishonest.

Stevaroni Wrote:

Anyway, back on track… Yup. A healthy debate rages. But that’s only because evolution is continuously challenged, reviewed, refined.

Even — dare I say it — critically analyzed all the time.

And guess what, the more we look at it, the more solid it seems. We may argue about the shape of the tree or the arrangement of this branch or that, but that’s a far cry from the claim that science thinks that there was no tree.

Quite ironic since, unlike classic creationists, few if any IDers ever explicitly said that they doubt that it is “tree.” Plus the closest ID has ever come to stating a “consensus” conclusion (Behe’s hypothesis) essentially admits that it is a tree, and that mainstream science is correct about its ~4 billion year history.

It’s sad, though. ID could have just come clean, and really tried to develop a theory along those lines. Instead, to try to keep classic creationists under the big tent, they cover up their irreconcilable differences (or that they are “closet evolutionists” which I suspect most ID leaders are), quote mine, define terms to suit their argument, and try to have it all both ways.

Any wonder why most major religions want no part of ID?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on June 26, 2006 1:45 PM.

Research ID Wiki Opens was the previous entry in this blog.

Are Creationists Anti-Science? 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