The Conscience of John Mark Reynolds Speaks…

| 56 Comments

I have just read the latest post of young-earth creationist/Discovery Institute fellow/Biola professor/blogger John Mark Reynolds. I think I am just going to have to occasionally serve the role of his guilty conscience in matters scientific. He has apparently thrown his own scientific conscience down a well somewhere, or he wouldn’t be able to say the wildly hypocritical things he does.

In his latest, Reynolds is preaching about how Christianity, in his view, depends upon on hard, honest connections to the visible world. It is not, he says, like the Heaven’s Gate cult or other wacko groups:

However, a rational person does not just need beliefs that fit together in his own head, but beliefs that fit with and explain his experience of the world. As a set of beliefs, a world view, stops being connected to the real world or as the connections grow smaller and smaller, it becomes more and more irrational.

The Heaven’s Gate cult is a good example. In 1997 all the members of this California religious group committed suicide in the mistaken notion that the comet Hale-Bopp was a sign that it was time to die and go to heaven. Sadly, there was no connection between what they believed and the real world. Their beliefs were perfectly consistent and if any of them had been true it might have been interesting to listen to them. Consistency in the web of belief is not good enough. A person also has to ask, “Are my beliefs connected to reality?”

Some Christians will say, “I know in my heart that my beliefs are true!” This is not good enough. Any number of foolish things can be justified in the human heart. There has to be a connection between beliefs and the outside world. This has become more difficult for Christians in the last two hundred years. Most mainstream science has rejected important components of a Biblical world view. Traditional Christianity believed God worked in the visible world. Science is no longer allowed to see that action, even if it exists. It feels free to ignore divine action as being either non-existent or so rare and unimportant that it can be safely ignored. For most of church history, Christians felt comfortable with science. It supported their view of the world. Now for many Christians there exists a tension, or at least a worry, that their beliefs are not so different from Heaven’s Gate.

[…]

Christians must love a real God passionately enough to crave knowledge of him. The must love His Word enough to find that the Bible itself does, as a whole, connect to the visible world. Christians must have faith, but this faith should be consistent with reason which is not a mere religious rationalization. The Heaven’s Gate cult is alleged to have bought a telescope to look at the comet Hale-Bopp. When their view through the telescope did not confirm their beliefs, they returned the telescope on the assumption it was defective. This is the path of madness that leads to death.

(Bolds added.)

All well and good, so far. Christians shouldn’t be like the crazed cultists who explain away inconvenient facts that don’t agree with their prior religious beliefs. That’s high-minded talk, that.

John Mark Reynolds of 2007, meet John Mark Reynolds of 1999. What are we to think about you?

Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidences for a recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns.

[…]

As it is now interpreted, the data are mostly against us. Well and good. We take this seriously. Eventually, failure to deal with that data in a recent creationist scientific theory would be sufficient reason to give up the project. […] Recent creationists should humbly agree that their view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds.

[…]

Presently, we can admit that as recent creationists we are defending a very natural biblical account, at the cost of abandoning a very plausible scientific picture of an “old” cosmos. But over the long term, this is not a tenable position. In our opinion, old earth creationism combines a less natural textual reading with a much more plausible scientific vision. They have many fewer “problems of science.” At the moment, this would seem the more rational position to adopt.

(Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds (1999). “Young Earth Creationism.” in: Three Views on Creation and Evolution, edited by James Porter Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. Zondervan, pp. 41-75. Pages 49, 51, 73. Bolds added.

Just how much clearer could it possibly be that John Mark Reynolds is actively engaged in denying reality because it doesn’t fit with his prior religious beliefs? He basically admitted it in 1999. So how is this any different from the very wackos he criticizes in 2007? How can he claim Christians’ view of the world should be connected to the observed real world, and yet arrogantly, scandalously dismiss everything from radiometric isochron dating to thermoluminescence to stellar distances to the complete absence of non-radiogenic nuclides with short half-lives to ice cores to varves to tree rings.

I am well aware that most Christians think that John Mark Reynolds’ attitude is ludicrous – in fact, most of the pages I linked to above were written by Christians, even evangelicals.

Reynolds has written in various places that a particular Bible reading should be surrendered if the empirical case against it makes the reading “hopeless.” Geocentrism is given as an example. But just how much more hopeless could the case for a young-earth possibly get? Why should anyone take Reynolds seriously as an honest, reliable thinker when he won’t even take his own high-minded advice about keeping ones’ views connected to the real world and “following the evidence where it leads”?

I know that some PT readers may be tired of me harping on this, but (1) I am morbidly fascinated by the creationist mind and (2) if, at some point in the future, John Mark Reynolds wakes up in the middle of the night and realizes he’s been living a lie and that his own Christian beliefs are telling him to deal with reality, suck it up like the grown man he is, and admit that the young-earth view is wrong, then it will have been worth it.

PS: So far the only (implicit) response I have seen out of John Mark Reynolds is that the people who criticize young-earth creationism are “rude.” I guess he doesn’t think it’s rude when he calls UFO cultists deluded.

56 Comments

conscious = Conscience?

Yes, I am an idiot…

nmatke Wrote:

Yes, I am an idiot…

<g>

You can delete my comment now that you fixed it. No one will understand it.

have just read the latest post of young-earth creationist/Discovery Institute fellow/Biola professor/blogger John Mark Reynolds.

Willing suspension of disbelief. The brighter and more self aware among the YEC have to know it is total nonsense. Willing suspension of disbelief is something everyone does to read fiction, watch TV or a movie. They have just decided to check their disbelief more or less permanently.

It would be harmless like believing in UFOs or ESP except for one thing. They want the unwilling to enter into their fantasy world. What is worse, they want to shove their fantasy world into our children’s biology classes of all things. This should be illegal. Hmmmm, now that I think about it, it is illegal.

Eh, might as well admit error. Mei spellling iss sumtimes pour.

[qs] I am morbidly fascinated by the creationist mind[/qs]

Not so morbid, Nick. It‘a called self-preservation. Those who are deluded by other visions have their fingers on some mighty powerful weapons throughout the world. Better we learn to ease or cure the delusions than wait till one monkey decides to bring on Armageddon.

I’m convinced that my fellow Christians who hold to creationist views do so because of all the wrong reasons: they feel it fits in with their “world view” and that they lose the culture war if they give ground. But Christians should approach the issue from the basis of what is true, is true. The purpose of theology is to make sense of what we know is true within a spiritual context, so young earth or any other kind of Creationism is excluded on the basis of a distinct lack of truth.

Francis Collins rightly quotes St. Augustine, from the 5th Century, who discouraged a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Trying to force the stories in Genesis one and two into a model of creation is “shameful”, with the explanation that “The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions … and are criticized and rejected as unlearned men”.

Ignoring what is true about the physical world to make it fit your theology is backwards; our theology must synthesize what we know is true into a coherent model of faith.

Ignoring what is true about the physical world to make it fit your theology is backwards

if you truly agree with that statement, you might want to re-read some of Collin’s arguments about “moral law” and special creation in his latest book, cause, uh, *damn*, he does tend to do that very thing.

cognitive dissonance knows no boundaries, it would seem…

Nick Matzke Wrote:

I know that some PT readers may be tired of me harping on this, but (1) I am morbidly fascinated by the creationist mind and (2) if, at some point in the future, John Mark Reynolds wakes up in the middle of the night and realizes he’s been living a lie and that his own Christian beliefs are telling him to deal with reality, suck it up like the grown man he is, and admit that the young-earth view is wrong, then it will have been worth it.

Just once I’d like to hear someone else say this…

We simply don’t know that (2) has not happened already. All we know is that he has not admitted that in public. I have no problem believing that some rank & file creationist, or maybe even a YEC leader, can be so hopelessly compartmentalized to not see the blatant contradiction between the two positions. But with ID we are dealing with the slickest “kind” of snake oil salesman. Reynolds’ 2007 rhetoric is exactly the same as that of IDers who have clearly admitted an old Earth, and in some cases even common descent. In fact, no IDer to my knowledge has ever used such clear language for anything that directly ontradicts the OE-CD position. ID is politically friendlier to YEC than to OEC for the simple reason that YECs outnumber OECs among the rank & file.

Why should anyone take Reynolds seriously as an honest, reliable thinker when he won’t even take his own high-minded advice about keeping ones’ views connected to the real world and “following the evidence where it leads”?

As a Christian Nick, I can’t take any YEC seriously now. Recently I’ve been watching YEC’s from AiG (most of the talks from Liberty University) on a UK TV station, and there is nothing that they have said that convinces me that their “evidence” for a young Earth is true. All the arguments for a young Earth have been debunked over and over again. And yet, the evidence for an old Earth and even older Universe is overwhelming. Either they are lying to their audience or they are seriously deluded. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they are seriously deluded. The sad thing is, (judging by the size of the audiences at their talks), they are deluding thousands of sincere and well meaning Christians as well.

Where are our dinosaurs!!!

I keep asking this question because no creo has ever answered it. According to dogma, all terrestrial life originated in the middle east, got on the Big Boat 5 ky ago, presumably got off. 99% of it then died, including all the dinosaurs. I blame it on poor post deluge planning and/or incompetent dinosaur husbandry.

I’m sure they have an ad hoc explanation but there is an oopsy in there somewhere and they don’t seem to want to talk about it.

The problem with piling on ad hoc miracles is that after a while the whole thing starts to look ridiculous. These guys have rocks forming from sediment in a week, the supercontinent breaking up 5,000 years ago and superspeed plate tectonics rafting Australia with marsupials to the antipodes.

It is also bad theology, it makes god look like a devious, unfathomable being who created a 5.8 kiloyear universe that just happens look like it is 13.7 billion years old.

The Heaven’s Gate cult is a good example. In 1997 all the members of this California religious group committed suicide in the mistaken notion that the comet Hale-Bopp was a sign that it was time to die and go to heaven. Sadly, there was no connection between what they believed and the real world. Their beliefs were perfectly consistent and if any of them had been true it might have been interesting to listen to them. Consistency in the web of belief is not good enough. A person also has to ask, “Are my beliefs connected to reality?”

What proof does he have that the Heaven’s Gate cult was mistaken?

Can he prove they’re not in Heaven?

What proof does he have that the Heaven’s Gate cult was mistaken? Can he prove they’re not in Heaven?

If Heaven has a Special-Ed division, one might well find them there…

Funny, I had a thought the other day, and here is a perfect illustration of it.

Creationists like Reynolds are motivated by religion in a bad way - they seem to wish to legally force everyone to observe the rituals and arbitrary taboos that they personally claim to favor (although often secretly violated, eg Ted Haggard, etc, etc, etc), in gross violation of basic human rights.

They are NOT, however, religious in the usual sense of the term.

Reynolds is openly stating that his acceptance of Christianity (and by implication, whatever minimal moral restraints he may observe, or at least pretend to observe, as a result of that) is dependent on proof that the claims of Christianity are literally true.

For Reynolds, either Jesus can prove that the Noah’s ark story is “literally true”, or it’s all the exact equivalent of the Heaven’s Gate cult.

He then goes on to falsely claim the the earth is 6000 years old and so on. But that doesn’t change the fact that his statements are a mockery and perversion of actual religious faith.

Please note that I am by no means either favoring or condemning any particular religious view, or lack thereof.

But I think we should recognize the difference between hypocrisy motivated by authoritarian fantasies and actual religious belief, however some of us may feel about the latter.

Nich Matzke Wrote:

his own Christian beliefs are telling him to deal with reality

Errrm…

His own Christian beliefs tell him he must believe the ruler of the entire universe turned himself into a person and died, which, by some inexplicable mechanism, “saves” him from the “sin” of the world that this very ruler created, and if he ever stops believing this he will burn for eternity in “Hell”, which was also apparently created by this same “loving” ruler of the universe.

If he’s already allowed that nonsense to guide his thinking, what’s a little more creationist nonsense gonna change? I don’t see anything about Christian theology that even remotely connects to reality, and I’m not surprised at all that people who believe that stuff are often more than willing to reject evidence in favor of dogma.

Wes -

You are oversimplifying Christianity quite a bit; among other things you use the word as if it referred to a single, monolithic, religious tradition. You also imply that followers of “Christianity” must by definition reject science or uncritically accept irrational ideas beyond their core religious beiefs (“I’m not surprised at all that people who believe that stuff are often more than willing to reject evidence in favor of dogma.”), which is factually incorrect.

However, your description of Christian beliefs, however oversimplified, is probably somewhat accurate, for millions of people.

But again, millions of those people, who hold those nond-disprovable, spiritual beliefs, also accept scientific reality.

Many if not most Christian traditions require faith.

What creationists like Reynolds demonstrate is a complete lack of faith. Reynolds effectively states that he won’t accept Christian belief on faith, but that rather, he has to imagine that the Bible has been literally “proven true” by scientific measurement. That attitude is implicit in all ID/creationism, but especially clear in YEC.

You may not like traditional Christianity, or any Christianity, and that’s fine, but let’s not confuse this fundamentalist demand for a concrete formula with the rest of Christianity.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 11, column 375, byte 1169 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

The purpose of theology is to make sense of what we know is true within a spiritual context,…

The world would be a much better place if most theologians agreed with you.

Posted by raven on May 3, 2007 8:27 AM (e)

Where are our dinosaurs!!!

In that doofy new “museum,” wearing blanket cloths and saddles.

Where are our dinosaurs!!!

I keep asking this question because no creo has ever answered it. According to dogma, all terrestrial life originated in the middle east, got on the Big Boat 5 ky ago, presumably got off. 99% of it then died, including all the dinosaurs. I blame it on poor post deluge planning and/or incompetent dinosaur husbandry.

You obviously haven’t heard of the dragon legends, that behemoth which is mentioned in the book of Job, the Loch Ness monster, and all those North American Indian cave drawings that look an awful lot like dinosaurs. Oh never mind. If you visit the AiG museum which opens in a few weeks Raven you’ll find all the answers your looking for there .…. !!!

Here’s the key:

[Christians] must love His Word enough to find that the Bible itself does, as a whole, connect to the visible world.

In other words, a True religion must be consistent with reality, and Christianity is (by definition) True. So Christianity IS consistent with reality. If it appears otherwise, it’s only because we don’t love His Word enough!

Just another demonstration that if you start with the right premises (and refuse to question them), you can prove anything logically.

You obviously haven’t heard of the dragon legends, that behemoth which is mentioned in the book of Job, the Loch Ness monster, and all those North American Indian cave drawings that look an awful lot like dinosaurs. Oh never mind. If you visit the AiG museum which opens in a few weeks Raven you’ll find all the answers your looking for there .…. !!!

Oh, I see. If you lower your criteria for what is reasonable than anything can fit in. There is no proof that any of those animals are anything but mythological but creos aren’t real big on proof anyway so it doesn’t matter.

Still missing a huge amount of terrestrial life, that 400 million years worth of giant dragon flies from the carboniferous, permian reptiles, mammal like reptiles from the triassic, ice age megafaunas, giant South American terror birds, and so on. But I’m sure there is an ad hoc explanation for those too.

However you explain it, there was certainly a high attrition rate of species post Big Boat landing. Not sure who or what to blame for that. Poor post deluge planning or something else.

The creationists can’t win. If you look at religion and science, it has been a steady retreat from the religious viewpoints on what the visible world is like. First it was Copernicus and the earth center theory, then the demise of the flat earth theory. Then the age of the earth. Geology and astronomy have mostly triumphed although there are still pockets of geology and big bang deniers.

Creationism has been in retreat since the 1800s and the battle has long been won scientificly. Their ad hocracy just doesn’t explain the real world or fit in with the mountains of facts. It also isn’t useful.

Despite Egnor’s blunders, evolutionary concepts have fed into agriculture and medicine in very important ways. To cite just one example, emerging diseases are a constant threat and we’ve seen many in the last 30 years, SARS, HIV, bird flu, ebola, nipah, others. One is a serious worldwide killer, having successfully emerged, HIV/AIDS. Evolutionary thought indicates that there will be more. There is a possibility that the next successful one might make HIV look like a minor nuisance.

In the link in Nick’s Comment #173345, Reynolds says:

“The good news is that if young-earth creationism fails, it will not impact Christianity. If C.S. Lewis could be ‘old earth,’ I am confident I could survive such a ‘switch!’”

If that means that Reynolds is still promoting YEC directly elsewhere, as he did in the 1999 quote, then one must wonder if the switch already occurred, and that he survived it, but still sees the need to conceal that from the rank & file YECs he needs for political support. Another possibility is that there was no switch, but he has been “enlightened” into the “postmodern” way of thinking that characterizes ID, and now truly believes that it could be something like “YEC and OEC at the same time.” If so he can keep the YEC fairy tale that he needs, whether for himself or his audience, no matter what the evidence says.

Either way, ID is still a scam, and I’m sure that Reynolds knows it. He could easily have substituted “mainstream evolution” for “old earth” and “Kenneth Miller” for “C.S. Lewis” and made the same point about Christianity. But of course, Miller is ID enemy #1 for the simple reason that he was one of the first Christians to expose ID.

raven — I admire your optimism, which, because of the current administration, I do not share…

So far the only (implicit) response I have seen out of John Mark Reynolds is that the people who criticize young-earth creationism are “rude.”

Reynolds has no right to whine about the ‘rudeness’ of people criticizing YECism as long as he says stuff like this:

Other people give up on reality. They replace the old Western core beliefs with a new eastern mystical set. They give up on gaining external “truth” altogether. The main goal is to live lives that make sense to the individual within his own frame of reference. In a sophisticated way, many in the humanities have also given up on rationality. They no longer try to unify science and their own beliefs. Truth is a power game to them.

David B. Benson:

raven — I admire your optimism, which, because of the current administration, I do not share…

I admittedly don’t have all that much reason myself. For creationist ad hocracy to “win” would be a giant step back towards the dark ages. There are only a few modern cases where societies let ideology triumph over science and reason, nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR. Both totalitarian and ultimately unsuccessful. OTOH, civilizations historically collapse often and the Romans probably said, “naw, it couldn’t happen here” too.

Three out of 10 GOP candidates admitted not believing in evolution. Which means 7 do. Better than I expected.

“The [GOP] field split on another issue [evolution!], with Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raising their hands when moderator Chris Matthews asked who did not believe in evolution.”

Raven & David:

The way I see it, creationism, and pseudoscience in general, is winning the PR war, and will continue to win regardless of who is president. BTW, from the debate of Republican candidates, there’s almost no chance that the next president will reject evolution. Of course, like GWB and McCain, he/she might fall for the “teach the controversy” scam regardless.

The “‘teach the controversy’ is ID is creationism is religion” argument may be necessary to keep anti-evolution pseudoscience out of public schools, but it only a minor part of what is wrong with anti-evolution activism. To emphasize that aspect, while downplaying how it is a slick misrepresentation scam, and rejected by most mainstream religions to boot, is counterproductive.

Raven -

“Three out of 10 GOP candidates admitted not believing in evolution. Which means 7 do. Better than I expected.”

My understanding was that only four candidates answered that question.

John “straight talk express” McCain uncharacteristically engaged in some genuinely straight talk and said that he does “believe” in evolution - albeit after a comical hesitation. (this does not represent anything remotely close to an endorsement of McCain’s candidacy).

Brownback, Tancredo, and one other, believed to be Huckabee indicated that they “do not believe” in evolution.

My understanding was that the other six failed to answer. Was I wrong? In fairness, I can’t see Giuliani answering that one the wrong (this does not represent anything remotely close to an endorsement of Giuliani’s candidacy). That still leaves five.

Pro-Science Conservatives and Libertarians -

Why was this question asked at a purely political debate? Why wasn’t it asked at the Democrat debate? Do you believe that, had it been asked at the Democrat debate, three presidential candidates would have denied evolution?

Oh, I see. If you lower your criteria for what is reasonable than anything can fit in. There is no proof that any of those animals are anything but mythological but creos aren’t real big on proof anyway so it doesn’t matter.

I was in sarcasm mode raven by the way. If I could have posted a little smiley icon I would have done so but dots and exclamation marks was the nearest I could come up with !

Ham on the cave drawings. :

Ham “What are these creatures” Park rangers “These are cats” Ham “and what are these” Park rangers “These are dogs” Ham: “And what are these” referring to the supposed dinosaur drawings Park rangers “We don’t know what these are” Ham “the park rangers call them mystical creatures. Why couldn’t they be dinosaurs ?” Park rangers “Because dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago” Ham “Excuse me but were you there ?”

If Reynolds is really a committed YEC then he could always get a job at their (AiG’s) ground breaking museum !

Ham: “And what are these” referring to the supposed dinosaur drawings Park rangers “We don’t know what these are” Ham “the park rangers call them mystical creatures. Why couldn’t they be dinosaurs ?”

I know you were being sarcastic. I just found the AIG explanation about dragons, petroglyphs, and the loch ness monster somehow unconvincing.

A lot of the rock art is also of various humanoid but weird looking bipeds. I suppose these must be demons or space aliens. North America a few thousand years ago must have been an interesting place with herds of mammoths and dinosaurs with a few demons and space aliens thrown in.

This is permanent willing suspension of disbelief. Harmless except when they want to force our kids to learn it in biology classes.

I am morbidly fascinated by the creationist mind

Here’s a good example of how they think Nick:

That’s because evolution is a belief not supported by observational science. I find that for many people, once they are taught how to think about science and origins correctly, they see clearly that Darwinian evolution/millions of years have not be proved—and they also see clearly that the Bible’s history is confirmed by operational science—it’s the Bible’s history that makes sense of the world and what life is all about.

Ken Ham on his blog today:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/a[…]on-museum-2/

Just how do you convince someone who thinks like that ? I think the YEC’s definitely live in a different reality to the rest of us. In my opinion it’s almost like an extreme form of skepticism !

Anyway, I look forward to some juicy reports from the creation museum from the folks on the Panda’s Thumb when it opens in a few weeks.

harold Wrote:

Why was this question asked at a purely political debate? Why wasn’t it asked at the Democrat debate? Do you believe that, had it been asked at the Democrat debate, three presidential candidates would have denied evolution?

Out of 10, at least a few would have waffled or refused to answer, maybe even denied it outright. Recall how Gore waffled in 1999. The only reason that there would be probably less of that now is becsuse of the increased publicity (Dover, Ohio, etc.), Democrats are more confident that they don’t need to deny evolution to get votes. But just as I constantly have to remind everyone that, just because someone, especially a politician, publicly denies evolution does not necesarily mean that he personally denies it, the reverse may be true. Most Democrat candidates are science-illiterate, and surely many have fallen for the scam.

sex shop

Loren Petrich | April 9, 2004 1:25 AM

An alternative word: “basal”, as in:

Fish are basal vertebrates.

Yes, and we could also add “stem” and “terminal” to our definitions, but I didn’t want to do a whole tutorial on cladistics :-)

For a characteristically lively and lucid brief treatment:

Dawkins, Richard. 1992. “Progress.” In Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, edited by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth A. Lloyd. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

John wrote

Yes, and we could also add “stem” and “terminal” to our definitions, but I didn’t want to do a whole tutorial on cladistics :-)

Um. That might actually a good topic for a posting or series thereof on the model of Reed’s EvoMath series, John.

RBH

erotik ürünler

erotik ürünler

şişme manken

şişme manken

şişme manken

thenks selam herkeze kekeler

thanksssssssss ssssss ssssssss..

thank you very much

erotik ürünler satan mağaza

erken bosalma, geciktirici, gec bosalma, erotik, cinsellik ürünleri, safex prezervatif, safex geciktirici prezervatif

Erken bosalma said:

erken bosalma, geciktirici, gec bosalma, erotik, cinsellik ürünleri, safex prezervatif, safex geciktirici prezervatif

Alderan en lenthrinau vos sola naris nor!

(are the thread-necromancy posts filled with gibberish an attempt at actual necromancy? Or just spam in a foreign language?)

Klaatu barada nikto!

erken bosalma, geciktirici, gec bosalma, erotik, cinsellik ürünleri, safex prezervatif, safex geciktirici prezervatif

The who whatting how with huh?

seks shop seks shop

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on May 2, 2007 10:39 PM.

Sal Cordova’s Rank Dishonesty was the previous entry in this blog.

Red State Rabble on the dangers of the Discovery Institute’s Plan B is the next entry in this blog.

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

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter