Eugenie Scott Lecture (and the DI Panic)

| 39 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Speaker lectures on evolution, intelligent design controversy on historical and local level at Ohio University

The controversy between evolution and intelligent design does not come down to whether a person is religious, but is a matter of sound scientific evidence, said a speaker who was on campus last night as part of Ohio University’s scientific lecture series.

“Evolution is the only scientific game in town,” said Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution in public schools.

Seems that the successes of NCSE and its supporters has become a thorn in the eye of the Discovery Institute.

Compare Scott’s statement

Although she is a strong opponent of intelligent design, Scott said she does not see a “dichotomy between science and religion or evolution and religion.”

Many Roman Catholics and evangelistic Christians accept the idea of human evolution, yet still maintain their faith, she said.

“Every human society known has some concept of something beyond physical matter. There is a reason why people seek out these beliefs,” she said. She added that science can meet most human needs, but that “science is not going to meet all the needs that humans have.”

With West’s spin

Since most Americans believe in God, these efforts undoubtedly represent clever public relations on Scott’s part. Whether they represent more than that is questionable. Like most leading evolutionists, Scott herself is certainly not personally sympathetic to religion. A few days ago, for example, she was a featured speaker at the “Crystal Clear Atheism” conference sponsored by the Atheist Alliance International. There she shared the podium with such atheist attack-dogs as Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

Or worse…

But one doesn’t need to rely on private correspondence to ascertain Scott’s real views on religion and evolution. In 2003 she signed a public document called the Humanist Manifesto III, which celebrates “the inevitability and finality of death” and proclaims that “humans are… the result of unguided evolutionary change.” By specifically citing “unguided evolutionary change” as part of its case for “a progressive philosophy of life… without supernaturalism,” this manifesto clearly suggests that evolution properly understood contradicts belief in a personal God. Did Scott fail to understand this document when she signed it along with such anti-religious zealots as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer? Do I really need to answer that question?

I love to see the “Christian mind” at work. As a Christian and scientist, I am quite disappointed in West.

Doesn’t West comprehend that in case of evolution, religious beliefs do not matter unlike with ID where the lack of scientific relevance and the entanglement with religion makes ID unconstitutional to be taught as science in public schools.

1 TrackBack

Panda's Thumb and from Thinking Christian on October 10, 2007 11:01 AM

It seems to me that our friend PvM has resorted to the time-tested rhetorical strategy of sloganeering. Read More

39 Comments

Problems not yet fixed completely:

Can’t read below the fold. I get

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 15, column 759, byte 1974 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

My fault…

I totally agree there is no dichotomy between evolution and religion, but I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the final criticism of West (if he IS accurately complaining about a statement that humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change - can’t say I trust his quoting). As I see it, the scientific situation is “there is no evidence of (intelligently) directed evolution. This is not the same as saying “evolution is undirected” … that’s a metaphysical statement, rather than a scientific statement, in my view. If I deal a hand - 57JQK - maybe it was going to be 67JQK until God intervened. As long as he doesn’t leave a telltale statistical influence, we wouldn’t know the difference. It is in exactly those situations where we wouldn’t know the difference (i.e. all of them) that religious belief doesn’t matter to science, because there’s no scientifically detectable difference. Science IS concerned with non-science (e.g. metaphysical assertions) masquerading as science, evading the protective filter that is the job of science; and that is where science is interested in religion.

Anytime someone says something like “evolution is unguided” when they really mean “the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks”, they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

Anytime someone says something like “evolution is unguided” when they really mean “the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks”, they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

I agree. From now on we should also speak of “selection for which the evidence it was deliberately guided is bollocks” and “mutation for which the evidence it was deliberately caused is bollocks”. To do otherwise is to play into the hands of creationists.

I agree about the absence of a dichotomy, but I’m less sure about this new form of scientific terminology proposed by snaxolotl and Mike.

I notice that West uses the “poisoning the well” logical fallacy.

Just because Eugenie Scott happens to be an atheist does not in any way invalidate the point she makes about religion and science being compatible.

To tolerate means to accept the existence of things you disagree with. In its full sense, it means that you must actively defend the right of your opponents to express their views, even if you’re ready to crush them under the weight of your arguments.

Mr West, whoever he is, shows that he hasn’t the slightest clue about what tolerance might be. He can’t even “know it when he sees it”. I suggest he gets an education.

Oh come now. We have to get behind the effort, and make sure we don’t give theists ammunition. We’ll turn our attention to those godless physicists and epidemiologists next.

Scientists really need to start putting disclaimers in everything they write saying “Elements of this paper may suggest workings of nature not under the direct micromanagement of God. This is not intended by the authors, who are open to the possibility that everything was in fact carried out by God in a way that was indistinguishable from what we would expect if God didn’t do it.”

We should also put theistically acceptable alternate titles on all scientific papers. The journal Nature shall henceforth be known as Nature (or perhaps Supernature, but we can’t tell).

PvM Wrote:

Doesn’t West comprehend that in case of evolution, religious beliefs do not matter unlike with ID where the lack of scientific relevance and the entanglement with religion makes ID unconstitutional to be taught as science in public schools.

Of course he does. Which is why he (assuming he agrees with the current DI position) does not advocate teaching ID, but rather only the misrepresentations of evolution that lead most students to infer ID - and their favorite, but long discredited alternate account of biological history.

Like any major IDer, and those promoters of classic creationisms who know that they are telling fairy tales, West undoubtedly believes that the “masses” need to take fairy tales literally in order to behave properly.

Scott is an atheist, which she has admitted elsewhere.

Whats this bull about no conflcit between science and religion?

Has she gone Neville Chamberlain?

Whats this bull about no conflcit between science and religion?

Mike already answered this question as articulately as anyone could possibly ask for, saying scientists

are open to the possibility that everything was in fact carried out by God in a way that was indistinguishable from what we would expect if God didn’t do it.

So long as you don’t ignore, distort, or misrepresent the evidence, you can layer on all the religion you want without conflict. Your only sin is to violate Occam’s Razor, but Occam will forgive you.

Singh,

PvM is a Christian, as he has admitted elsewhere.

So what is all of this bull about science and religion being incompatible?

The point is that your conclusion does not follow logically from your premises. For example, if the hypothesis is that there is no relationship between religious belief and acceptance of science, then people can hold any religious beliefs that they want and still support good science. So the data point of Eugenie Scott is compatible with that hypothesis. Indeed, the only way in which the data could even be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis would be if every single scientist were an athiest. But, if the hypothesis is that acceptance of science forces one to be an athiest, then the PvM data point (and millions of others) falsify that hypothesis conclusively. In much the same way, saying that you can make a tire without rubber in no way implies that rubber does not exist and obviously only those with a vested financial interest in rubber would try to claim otherwise.

I am disappointed in West. He missed the easy one:

“Evolution is the only scientific game in town,” said Dr. Eugenie C. Scott…

I expected the DI to use the headline: “NCSE Director admits evolution is a game

So did he deal with the content of her speech at all?

I really don’t see that West’s final point makes any sense at all. Doesn’t the fact that the Manifesto that Scott (et al.) signed refers to “unguided evolution” leave open the possibility of a “guided evolution”? The only thing she’s affirming here is that she, herself, believes evolution to have been unguided.

Now if the Manifesto had referred to “evolution, which is by its very nature an unguided process”, then West would have something to talk about.

I really don’t see that West’s final point makes any sense at all. Doesn’t the fact that the Manifesto that Scott (et al.) signed refers to “unguided evolution” leave open the possibility of a “guided evolution”? The only thing she’s affirming here is that she, herself, believes evolution to have been unguided.

Now if the Manifesto had referred to “evolution, which is by its very nature an unguided process”, then West would have something to talk about.

Singh Wrote:

Whats this bull about no conflcit between science and religion?

So, obviously you challenge the view that there is no need for science and religion to be incompatible.

There exist many scientists who hold very deep religious beliefs (not just Christian, but also Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and so on) and who see no conflict between their religion and the findings of modern science.

What data supports your challenge to this view, Singh?

Wamba Wrote:

So did he deal with the content of her speech at all?

Content… we need to need no pathetic content, we are are Intelligent Design…

My impression is that the statement “evolution is unguided” refers not to the question of unseen agents pulling mutational strings (a metaphysical, not scientfic, question, as snaxalotl pointed out), but that “unguided” means that evolution cannot plan ahead. Natural selection is always a generation behind the environment.

Also, there is nothing wrong with an atheist pointed out that there is no conflict between science and faith. You do not need to be a beliver to understand that there are belivers who have the same appreciation for evidence and reason as you. The only relgion that science is in conflict from is strict fundamentalism where only those who accept literal text interpritations are “belivers”. And to be honest, evolution is the least of the ways that strict interpritations are inaccurate. You do not need to be a beliver to understand that one can reject an ancient creation myth and still accept the concept of God.

snaxalotl is correct, but it is hard to operationalize what he says. There may be some person to whom the suggested changes in phraseology make a difference, and if you think you are in the presence of such a person, then, by all means, give it a shot. I suspect, however, that the class of persons who would accept snaxalotl’s phrasing and actually think about the issue while rejecting the more common phrasing is rather small. Indeed, I suspect that the number of people who perceive, and would be moved by, the difference between “no evidence of guidance” and “unguided” is in the three digits world-wide.

snaxalot Wrote:

Anytime someone says something like “evolution is unguided” when they really mean “the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks”, they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

Mike, with tongue firmly in cheek, Wrote:

Scientists really need to start putting disclaimers in everything they write saying “Elements of this paper may suggest workings of nature not under the direct micromanagement of God. This is not intended by the authors, who are open to the possibility that everything was in fact carried out by God in a way that was indistinguishable from what we would expect if God didn’t do it.”

I have to agree with Mike here; it’s folks in venues like this who need to do battle, and let scientists do science without having to self-censor to guard against malicious and willful misquotation.

The trackback attempts to address some of my claims

Thinking Christian Wrote:

One, teaching ID in public schools is a straw man objection that should have been dropped sometime back during the Cambrian Explosion. ID leaders are not arguing for that, and haven’t for a long time.

Instead they insist on ‘teaching the controversy’ which is nothing more than teaching ID. Perhaps it is a strawman in the sense that ID has become less straightforward about its well documented motives but it is still relevant.

Thinking Christian Wrote:

I’m not going to bother telling that story over again, it’s been told too often with too little effect. The head already hurts from banging against the brick wall of ID opponents who refuse to engage what we’re really saying.

Most ID opponents do in fact engage IDers, with devastating results.

Thinking Christian Wrote:

Two, van Meers describes ID as lacking scientific relevance and being entangled with religion. The first of these is wrong and the second is distorted. The relevance question reminds me of Richard Dawkins’s written response to the now-famous question asked of him in an interview,

“to ‘give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.’”

Since science has trivially shown that information can increase in the genome using such processes as ‘variation and selection’ (Schneider, Adami, Lenski) and gene duplication, and since ID proponents have accepted these facts, and are now arguing ‘show us the details’ rather than rejecting that evolutionary mechanisms can in fact increase information, the issue of Dawkins seems a rather ironic distraction.

The poster continues to show the level of scientific irrelevance of ID

Thinking Christian Wrote:

And what’s irrelevant about researching, say, the question of apparent irreducible complexity? Sure, there have been bare outlines of responses to IC (skeletal, hopeful, promissory responses), like Miller’s Type Three Secretory System explanation to the flagellum. The TTSS explanation was inadequate in the first place, since it omitted so many steps, and left us with just a promise that there must be an answer for the rest. And now we’re learning that the TTSS probably arose after the flagellum, which makes its usefulness in leading to the flagellum (shall we say) a tad doubtful.

Sure, when faced with scientific explanations, ID is quick to move the goalposts further and further while not providing ANY scientific competing explanation beyond ‘poof’. It is fascinating to me that ID defenders point to real scientific hypotheses as evidence that ID is not lacking in content.

And finally the real funny ‘argument’ that

Thinking Christian Wrote:

It seems to me that our friend PvM has resorted to the time-tested rhetorical strategy of sloganeering. His Panda’s Thumb audience is conditioned to think religion is bad, science is good;

On the contrary, religion is good, science is good is my motto and I am doing my best to present my case at Panda’s Thumb.

Thinking Christian Wrote:

not in regard to “meaning,” or “values,” as long as they are divorced from actual knowledge and thus rendered virtually effete, but in terms of knowledge itself. And van Meers’s use of the word “panic” in his blog post’s title is worthy of nothing more than a disgusted smirk. Read West’s article to see for yourself how much “panic” he’s displaying. PvM is practicing emotional engineering here, mere sloganeering–with no content whatsoever.

And so ends a posting which enhances and underlines my claim that ID is scientifically vacuous and that ID is in a virtual panic. Just check out the DI website.

PS: The name is Meurs not Meers PPS: I am also a “Thinking Christian”, the main difference may be that I consider myself to be a practicing one.

Mr. van Meurs, thank you for your response. I’m sorry about the name error. I tried to double-check it on Google before posting it, since I recalled seeing it more than one way. When I found a listing for “van Meers” I assumed it was correct. Obviously I was wrong. I’ll correct it. Thanks for the heads-up.

I don’t question your Christianity; that’s why I was careful to make a distinction about how Christianity is handled on the anti-ID side of the fence: that the problem relates to whether Christianity (or other religions) provide knowledge. I also do not question that you think religion is good; but the crowd here at PT doesn’t generally agree with you.

The sloganeering charge seems hard to refute, especially when you accuse West of “panic.”

Most ID opponents do in fact engage IDers, with devastating results.

I wish it were so. Even “devastating results,” if they really applied to the arguments, would represent a welcome change from tactics that often address straw men (as here), or to personalities (cf. the middle-school use of “Egnorance” often seen in comments here at PT).

I wish it were so. Even “devastating results,” if they really applied to the arguments, would represent a welcome change from tactics that often address straw men (as here), or to personalities (cf. the middle-school use of “Egnorance” often seen in comments here at PT).

As you point out, they are found mostly in comments. However, I believe that many of the contributors and many non-contributors/non-commenters have provided many devastating critiques of claims by ID.

You yourself accept that science has shown plausible pathways to explain IC systems, but now lament the fact that these pathways are ‘just so stories’, another name for hypothesis. That is how science works. It is faced with a claim that IC systems could not possibly have evolved, and show plausible pathways as to how IC systems can evolve. Such systems are quickly rejected as speculative or because they are not fully ‘Darwinian’ in that one or more steps may involve neutral steps. Concepts like CSI (complex specified information) or IC (irreducible complexity) are meaningless concepts (CSI) or disproven concepts (IC). CSI is basically an argument which calls something we do not yet understand ‘designed’ because it has a function. Since function is an inevitable outcome of evolutionary theory, function itself cannot really be used to reject evolutionary theory. In fact, as I have shown elsewhere, design does not even require a ‘designer’.

I believe that the best evidence against ID is its scientific irrelevance. I have attempted to elucidate my arguments in the Science v ID thread which outlines a scenario for the origin and evolution of the translation system.

Sure there is rethoric involved, especially when addressing the often content-free postings at Evolution News (Discovery Institute Blog site).

You accuse ID critics of avoiding the arguments, and yet West’s article goes to long extremes to avoid dealing with the claims, instead West attempts to impugn the witness with irrelevant ad hominem arguments such as accusing Scott of being an atheist, as if that somehow makes her arguments less relevant.

If that is not panic, what do you suggest it indicates?

Tom G, it would help if ID proponents actually provided evidence that they actually engaged in scientific research. As far as I can see, becoming a proponent of Intelligent Design also entails a total cessation of research. Case in point, why hasn’t Michael Behe written any reports, or why hasn’t Dempski ever actually tried to apply his explanatory filter to explain prehistoric lifeforms? Where are all those research projects the Discovery Institute are planning on doing? Why hasn’t it started on a single project? It would also help if ID proponents could demonstrate they were capable of using logic and critical thinking skills beyond quote mining or lying. Tell me how making a video of Judge John Jones farting shows that the people at the Discovery Institute are making good use of their time, please. This is why people have coined the term “Egnorance” for Dr Michael Egnor, a brain surgeon who, among other things, once tried to suggest that the reason why Tennessee barred the teaching of evolution was because biology textbooks, such as “A Civil Biology”, were racist, nevermind eugenics was quite alive and well in that state at that time. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]ory_of_e.php

A minor aside referring back to the ‘unguided evolutionary change’ bit - this actually seems to be a quote from the Wikipedia article on the Humanist Manifesto III document. If the complete article here is correct:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/H[…]irations.php

http://tinyurl.com/22wmvo

… then evolutionary theory doesn’t even get a mention.

It does in the Humanist Manifesto II however but this is written as:

“…science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.”

At: http://www.americanhumanist.org/abo[…]nifesto2.php

http://tinyurl.com/2z66f2

Think the Wikipedia author got carried away a little.

Perhaps unsurprisingly West also missed the context for the part around the ‘inevitably of death’ in HM III which just makes us Humanists sound like some sort of death cult Goth club for scientists - in context the section reads:

“We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death.”

Which does read slightly differently to the manner portrayed. Apparently it’s too much effort for West to click on a couple of links to check his information though or provide a rational and reasonable presentation of the Humanist worldview. Funny that - I thought the DI bunch hated that sort of thing … they seem quite keen to point out what martyrs to the cause they are at every opportunity.

Even “devastating results,” if they really applied to the arguments, would represent a welcome change from tactics that often address straw men (as here), …

It’s not our fault ID arguments are made of straw. Pleas for clarification rarely go heeded and when scientists attempt to fill in the gaps in order to refute, ID proponents trot out the Straw Man fallacy. C.f. any instance when Sal Cordova engages in “scientific” “debate”.

…or to personalities (cf. the middle-school use of “Egnorance” often seen in comments here at PT).

Accusations of lying and willful ignorance aren’t “middle-school” and don’t constitute the ad-hominem attacks.

Anytime someone says something like “evolution is unguided” when they really mean “the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks”, they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

Talk of “feeding the creationists” is the worst sort of intellectual cowardice and does the very thing it purports to avoid – creationists lick their chops every time they see such talk, recognizing that they have won a battle, much as Republicans rejoice when Democrats worry about being labeled as “soft on terrorism”.

It’s conceivable that the universe was created last Thursday, that men did not walk on the moon, and that George Bush is a shape shifter from Aldebaran, but that’s no reason to eschew normal assertive language and start blathering about the lack of evidence for such propositions.

The sloganeering charge seems hard to refute, especially when you accuse West of “panic.”

That you are a very dishonest person seems much harder to refute.

or to personalities (cf. the middle-school use of “Egnorance” often seen in comments here at PT).

Creationists do love to whinge about supposed ad hominems, don’t they? Tom G, try looking up the definition of an ad hominem - you don’t know what it means. It does not mean “calling someone names.” Egnor’s frequent ignorance about basic biological facts has been repeatedly demonstrated here, amply justifying the use of the mocking term “Egnorance.”

And if that’s middle-school level mockery, what’s the educational standing of the fart noises in Dembski & Co’s flash animation about Judge Jones?

Creationists do love to whinge about supposed ad hominems, don’t they? Tom G, try looking up the definition of an ad hominem - you don’t know what it means.

Um, Tom G didn’t use the term, GuyeFaux did.

Is panic the right word? They seem to be gearing way up to hit on the only thing that’s working for them now: the false dichotomy of accepted science vs. religion (read extremist religion). Remember, the game is all PR. The argument of “growing scientific acceptance” has been shot dead for this decade cycle (it will be back), so they have to hammer away at the other popular concepts that work for them: fairness, social relativism (two sides to every story), bias of the atheistic science cabal, differing world views, etc. To that end its absolutely essential for them to have the public think of the accepted science produced by the real scientific community (the guys and gals that do the work) as the biased output of aggressive atheists. This seems to be the strategy of Ben Stein’s upcoming movie.

Is Eugenie Scott the best spokesperson for countering the current creation science fuselage? There are others out there writing books and giving public lectures who are more believable. Doesn’t matter that Dr. Scott is telling the truth, and that NCSE has always had the science/religion relationship correct. Its a PR game. When the lyers try to focus attention on her shouldn’t we push attention back to all the believing scientists taking a public stand? How do we get more science supporters to take command of the framing instead of just reacting to the latest barrage of lies?

Is Eugenie Scott the best spokesperson for countering the current creation science fuselage?

That’s irrelevant. She’s a spokesperson, and when she spoke, West applied his illogic. Those who talk about how we should hide the atheists because its bad PR simply don’t understand the game – it’s the same sort of game that the Republicans play against weak-minded Democrats who say that the anti-war folks and other “confrontational” types should be hidden away. The Repubs and DI both understand that the best PR strategy is the one L. Ron Hubbard mouthed: “always attack, never defend”.

Right now, on the PT front page, I count at least three posts by PvM directly addressing ID claims with extensive summaries of current scientific research, as well as several other posts by PvM linking to other peoples’/blogs’ analyses. That’s just PvM alone, not counting the other fine contributions by Arthur and Wesley and Reed and everyone else.

A flip through the comments indicates that “Thinking Christian” has not even made the slightest effort to address these head-on. Just links to this post from his blog, and pretends it’s the entirety of the content on PT. I call that dishonest and cowardly.

I guess it’s much easier to whine about how nobody understands poor, misunderstood ID than to actually make some positive claims or debate the science. They learned well from Dembski.

Popper’s Ghost:

Tom G didn’t use the term [ad hominem], GuyeFaux did.

That’s what Tom G was talking about, even if he didn’t throw around the term. But you are correct in calling my attention to the fact that GuyeFaux pointed that out before I did, and more clearly and succinctly, too.

That’s what Tom G was talking about, even if he didn’t throw around the term.

Ahem. You claimed that Tom G doesn’t know what ad hominem means – even though he never used the term! Your accusation was incorrect, and your blather about “that’s what Tom G was talking about” is intellectually dishonest. We have no idea, from Tom G’s complaint about the middle-school use of “Egnorance”, whether he knows what “ad hominem” means. It’s quite possible that he didn’t use the term because he knows that “Egnorance” isn’t an example of it.

GuyeFaux pointed that out before I did, and more clearly and succinctly, too.

Yes, GuyeFaux committed the same sin: Accusations of lying and willful ignorance aren’t “middle-school” and don’t constitute the ad-hominem attacks – but Tom G never claimed that they do constitute ad hominem attacks. Others have, but not him. And he’s made many errors, but not that one. Just as we demand that “they” be honest and admit mistakes, we have an obligation to be honest and admit mistakes.

“Egnor’s frequent ignorance about basic biological facts has been repeatedly demonstrated here, amply justifying the use of the mocking term “Egnorance.””

Absolutely true. May I add that “ignorant” is not really an insult. It’s a diagnosis, a statement of fact. And saying “you are ignorant” is also an invitation (a friendly invitation, even) to go and educate yourself on the topic about which you speak without knowing anything.

Of course, Dr Egnor is a very good example for this.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 114, byte 114 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

NCSE’s next Visions edition will include a position statement by the National Council for the Social Studies. DI & the Christan press are reacting. For details and links, see

http://curricublog.org/2007/10/13/n[…]ncse-vision/

That should be “Voices” rather than “Vision.” I was trying to be brief. This will be the 3rd edition of Voices for Evolution, see

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=2

Tony Whitson:

NCSE’s next Visions edition will include a position statement by the National Council for the Social Studies. DI & the Christan press are reacting. For details and links, see

http://curricublog.org/2007/10/13/n[…]ncse-vision/

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 9, 2007 9:56 PM.

Encoding Issues Fixed was the previous entry in this blog.

You have to spend money to make money 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