Hunter vs. Hunt on Turf-13

| 125 Comments

As a last treat for the 150th anniversary of the Origin, have a look at young-earth creationist creationist Cornelius Hunter [Update: Hunter has stated he is not a young-earth creationist on his blog, so I guess he’s not, although that position directly follows from his stated theology/philosophy], author of the “Darwin’s God” book and blog. Hunter’s basic argument against virtually any common pro-evolution argument is, basically, “But you evolutionists are claiming that God wouldn’t have done it this way! You’re making an unscientific theological argument!”

(Never mind that when science writers have said things like “this looks like bad design”, they are simply using the design model that creationists themselves put forward – basically, that God is like a human designer, but way better. And never mind that the more sophisticated critiques of creationism – like Darwin’s – have noted that if you disallow the standard creationist assumptions, and just say God’s purposes are mysterious, then you’ve got nothing at all to test against empirical data.)

Anyway, as with many creationists, Hunter thinks his ridiculous little trope is actually a silver bullet that can be used to effortlessly kill any evolutionary evidence, thus saving his tender innocent brain the trauma of actually having to come up with a better explanation than the evolutionary one. The best example of this of late is Hunter’s reaction to T-urf13. In these posts awhile back, PTer Art Hunt explained that T-urf13 is an example of not just a new gene evolving from noncoding DNA – but it appears to be an example of an oligomeric protein complex, with the function of being a regulated ion channel, evolving from noncoding DNA. This natural origin of “new information” AND “new protein-protein binding sites” is just the kind of thing that antievolutionists – most recently ID leader Stephen Meyer in his Signature in the Cell claim can never, ever, ever happen, because the improbabilities are so huge, and because “intelligence” is the only possible explanation for new information.

Well, how does Hunter react to this empirical evidence on the origin of a new gene? He simply ignores the overwhelming sequence evidence right in front of him, and instead claims, based on typical creationist “it must have come together all at once from completely random sequence” assumptions, that the natural origin of T-urf13 is too improbable to be believed. On the strength of this careful, rigorous, half-a-sentence of statistical analysis, Hunter deduces, completely out of thin air, that an elaborate T-urf13-designing mechanism must exist in the corn genome (presumably he thinks this design mechanism was intelligently designed into corn). What supporting evidence does he offer for this quite ambitious hypothesis? He doesn’t even try. For an encore, he goes on to explain that – in essence – evidence for evolution doesn’t count if biologists dare to interpret it in an evolutionary framework. He uses an example of a fossil horse:

Here is a simple example: A new horse fossil is discovered and evolutionists decide where it fits best amongst the already known fossils. It may not fit perfectly, and the evolutionists may be unsure about which twig in the evolutionary bush is right for this new fossil (or if perhaps a new twig should be hypothesized). But they believe evolution is true and so the fossil must fit somewhere. They announce to the world that horse evolution is now better understood and apologists then use the finding as an example of powerful evidence for evolution. After all, the evolution of the horse has been revealed.

But of course the fossil revealed no such evolutionary step–it was interpreted as an evolutionary step. Unfortunately this sophistry is common.

Never mind that even young-earth creationists who have bothered to actually learn a little about the evidence – like Kurt Wise – admit that the fossil record of horses, and the fossil record of numerous other groups, support an evolutionary interpretation. Never mind that Hunter, for his part, spends his time making up excuses rather than explanations for data. Never mind that Hunter’s only “model” is just “God does things however he pleases, and it is not for us to question.” And he has the chutzpah to endlessly accuse scientists of bringing religion into science? Now that’s sophistry.

125 Comments

You might want to edit this, Nick: “PTer Art Hunter.”

A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter’s argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. He is happy to have thereby refuted all the people who point out bad design.

But he doesn’t get it that what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything!

Unless you have some information about the Designer’s intentions, her powers, how frequently she acts, and where, and on which organisms and which phenotypes, you ain’t got nothin’, no scientific hypothesis at all.

The only good thing about Hunter’s argument is that it sabotages the ID movements attempts to pretend that they are not religious. By claiming that arguments against design are theological arguments Hunter admits that he is only considering Gods as possible designers. And every time an IDer uses Hunter’s argument they implicitly admit that they, too, follow ID for religious and not for scientific reasons.

Nick,

Have you invited Cornelius to comment on this thread?

Art has been poking the Ider’s at UD about T-URF13 for some time. Choosing Hunter as their official champion for the response is like bringing a rubber chicken to a cockfight.

Dave Wisker said:

Art has been poking the Ider’s at UD about T-URF13 for some time. Choosing Hunter as their official champion for the response is like bringing a rubber chicken to a cockfight.

True, but what could any of them say?

Nick Matzke Wrote:

…young-earth creationist Cornelius Hunter…

I still don’t get why a YEC would resort to such “kinds” of arguments. Not only are they easily refuted to any reasonable person with the time and interest to pay attention, but even if he had a valid point, at best it might support Behe’s ~4 billion year old ancestral cell (with all the necessary “information” etc.). Why go through all that trouble when all he has to do is show that data from geology, astronomy, radiochemistry, etc. are all converging on a ~6000 year old earth? That would neatly invalidate evolution, Behe’s model and OEC all at once.

Steve P. said:

Nick,

Have you invited Cornelius to comment on this thread?

All anti-evolution activists are cordially invited to every thread. But with rare exceptions they prefer to stay on sites where they can control the comments. I wonder why? ;-)

Speaking of threads, on the “7th day Adventist” one you said that you were not dodging my question. I repeated it for you there yesterday morning, but I don’t see a reply. You may answer it here if that thread is closed.

I heard Hunter at Cornell in 2006 where he appeared to be an OEC (although possibly a crypto-OEC/”appearance of age” type). Have his years at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles changed his mind?

”…most recently ID leader Stephen Meyer in his Signature in the Cell claim can never, ever, ever happen, because the improbabilities are so huge, and because “intelligence” is the only possible explanation for new information.”

This seems to me to be the best strategy to expose the foolishness of the Hunter argument. Let the ID proponents make the predictions. Since they are almost universally ignorant of every finding in modern biology, they will inevitable claim that something that has already been observed is impossible or that something that will soon be discovered is impossible. Of course, they will only make negative claims about the potential of evolution to do this or that, but if they claim that GODDIDIT then they will have to explain exactly why she did it this way and no other.

SINE insertions and animal mitochondrial gene order are my favorite examples of this. They make perfect sense from an evolutionary viewpoint and no sense whatsoever using any kind of GODDIDIT or “common design” approach.

When the evidence is pointed out to them, don’t just let them get away with hand waving, demand an explanation. If they won’t accept the evolutionary scenario, demand an alternative. Force them to find a better explanation for ALL of the observed evidence. At least that way, anyone who is intellectually honest will easily see that they got nothin.

Our good friend Steve P. is an excellent example. On another thread, he claimed that endosymbiosis was impossible. When asked to explain the genetic similarity between animal mitochondrial DNA and purple bacteria DNA he replied that he had no idea, but still insisted that endosymbiosis could not possibly happen! He then went on to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the terms competition and selection. Well, he already made a claim and now he is going to have to come up with an explanation for the evidence. We’ll be waiting.

JohnK said:

I heard Hunter at Cornell in 2006 where he appeared to be an OEC (although possibly a crypto-OEC/”appearance of age” type). Have his years at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles changed his mind?

I am always skeptical when a fellow “Darwinist” says that any anti-evolution activist (at least those not associated with “classic” YEC outfits like ICR, AIG) “is” a YEC. All but the “classic” OECs like Hugh Ross promote YEC via the big tent strategy, but few if any try to support it.

Your description of Hunter reminds me of Paul Nelson. Someone suggested that he might be an Omphalos creationist. I asked Nelson to confirm or deny that during one of his rare visits here, and he simply evaded the question.

DS Wrote:

When the evidence is pointed out to them, don’t just let them get away with hand waving, demand an explanation. If they won’t accept the evolutionary scenario, demand an alternative.

Exactly. While I’m still waiting (after 3-4 tries) for Steve P. to answer my question, at least he gave some hint of an alternatve. Specifically he admitted agreeing with Behe that, whatever else happened, it happened “in vivo” (via common descent) and over the course of billions, not thousands, of years.

My question thus is extended to any YECs, OECs or IDers who want to challenge Steve. C’mon people, if you want anyone with more than half a brain to think that your objection to “Darwinism” is more than just the pathetic Hitler thing, get busy and do what real scientists do. Starting with challenging anti-evolutionists with “theories” that differ from yours.

Frank wrote:

“…at least he gave some hint of an alternatve. Specifically he admitted agreeing with Behe that, whatever else happened, it happened “in vivo” (via common descent) and over the course of billions, not thousands, of years.”

Well he is goiing to have to do better than that. Remember, he is the one who did not accept our pathetic level of detail, He is the one who demanded a step by step description.

Exactly how, when and why did God do this? Why did she make it look exactly like it would have if endosymbiosis was indeed responsible? Why all the evidence, some of it relating to arbitrary characteristics, that mitochondria are prokaryotic in nature? Was God not smart enough to create a mitochondria from scratch? This guy has a lot of splainin to do. Of course, I’m not optimistic, given the level of his understanding of basic biological concepts,

DS Wrote:

Well he is goiing to have to do better than that. Remember, he is the one who did not accept our pathetic level of detail, He is the one who demanded a step by step description.

Sure. You might recall my comment about Dembski’s attempt to play that game.

What bothers me, is that most people, even most who are not hopelessly fundamentalist and/or postmodern, don’t know or don’t care how these people (YECs, OECs and especially IDers) demand a blatant double standard.

Hunter deduces, completely out of thin air, that an elaborate T-urf13-designing mechanism must exist in the corn genome (presumably he thinks this design mechanism was intelligently designed into corn).

This is a classic example of circular thinking: assuming what you are trying to prove (i.e. design).

I doubt any more canny IDers will support Hunter, though. His argument makes a testable claim, which is a no-no for ID. No one like Behe or Dembski is going to sign on to a claim which implies some experiment could show independent evidence for/against ID, because then they’d have to explain why they don’t just do the experiment.

DS said:

Let the ID proponents make the predictions. Since they are almost universally ignorant of every finding in modern biology, they will inevitable claim that something that has already been observed is impossible or that something that will soon be discovered is impossible.

You mean like they are doing now with their “order/intelligence cannot arise from disorder/nonintelligence” mantra in the face of the abilities of Evolutionary algorithms? My personal favorite: Pat Robertson claiming women were intellectually inferior to men, and citing the “fact” that there had never been a woman chess grandmaster as evidence, when at that very time there were IIRC two women grandmasters, at least one named Polger.

As for Cornelius Hunter, he’s one of the IDers I put into the “the more they talk, the better off we are” category right next to Michael Egnor. Sophistry is too elevated a term for their arguments.

DS said: Steve P. on another thread claimed that endosymbiosis was impossible.

Since one can, for example, watch paramecium ingest chlorella algae through their vacuoles, which then merrily evade digestion and live by the hundreds symbiotically in the parameciums’ cytoplasm and thru its life cycle, one would hope that directly observed endosymbiosis (seen more than a third of a century ago) would have passed the “pathetic level of detail” level.

But maybe it’s only The Appearance of Endosymbiosis.

Re. Corny ever showing up here to discuss his claims – Corny’s been a bit gunshy ever since getting his own thread once at AtBC. It didn’t work out well for him.

Too bad he doesn’t like making appearances any more, because – as others also note – he’s transparently inane and a good stooge to poke at. I also get the impression he’s now a quasi-old-earther (kinda like Sanford) depending on mood, wind direction, etc.

Hunter deduces, completely out of thin air, that an elaborate T-urf13-designing mechanism must exist in the corn genome

Ask Hunter how he knows this. What is the evidence? He won’t have an answer.

The usual creo answer is goddidit or “voices in my head told me”.

Unproven assertions are just unproven assertions, not evidence or proof.

Ah yes, the ol’ frontloading hypothesis. I like to call it the Telic Thoughts ace-in-the-hole “thinking evangelical’s” Conjecture. Telic Thoughts, Uncommon Descent, “thinking evangelicals”, YEC, OEC… all creationist peas in a pod.

If goddidit is the explanation for this new protein, then he must be one sick bastard. T-URF13 is a receptor for a fungal toxin that decimated the maize crop in the US in the 1970’s.

386sx said:

Ah yes, the ol’ frontloading hypothesis. I like to call it the Telic Thoughts ace-in-the-hole “thinking evangelical’s” Conjecture. Telic Thoughts, Uncommon Descent, “thinking evangelicals”, YEC, OEC… all creationist peas in a pod.

They’re all “peas in a pod” in how they demand infinite evidence from “Darwinism” but feel exempt from providing any of their own. Not to mention the Hitler thing and the pretense that 99.9% of biologists are conspiring against them (never mind that every biologist knows that they’d become rich and famous if they really did find a better theory). But it’s the radical differences between them that I think is our best resource. Though sadly it’s rarely exploited.

As silly as the “frontloading hypothesis” is - even Behe abandoned it when a critic showed him how easy it would be to support - it is the only thing any DI person came up with in 20 years of trying. And even if there was something to it, it would be devastating news to YEC and OEC Biblical literalists.

What is the ID explanation for any particular fossil horse species? Did the designer simply drop a couple of them (or a herd of them) into existence? Where they foals who never had a dam? Or adults who had never been foals? I’d love to hear an ID explanation.

Frank J said:

As silly as the “frontloading hypothesis” is - even Behe abandoned it when a critic showed him how easy it would be to support - it is the only thing any DI person came up with in 20 years of trying. And even if there was something to it, it would be devastating news to YEC and OEC Biblical literalists.

Maybe it is time to have a runoff to determine who is right.

David L. Abel’s “transcendent cybernetic reality”

Scientific endeavors to better understand cybernetic reality in nature are confronted with the uneasy suggestion of its transcendence over the physicality it controls.

Philip Bruce Heywood’s “Superconduction plus the Earth, Moon, Sun gravitational system imparting intelligence to electrons”

Charlie Wagner’s theory of “Intelligent Input”

Michael Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity”

William Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information.”

If one compares these variations on a theme, one sees the old “vitalism” or the themes that permeate hunter/gatherer religions and the projections of “higher powers” or the wills of gods and demons onto nature.

Not one of these acknowledges what is already known from science.

Joe Felsenstein said:

A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter’s argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. He is happy to have thereby refuted all the people who point out bad design.

But he doesn’t get it that what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything!

Unless you have some information about the Designer’s intentions, her powers, how frequently she acts, and where, and on which organisms and which phenotypes, you ain’t got nothin’, no scientific hypothesis at all.

The error here is that the object in origin subjects is not to do science but to discovers the origins of things. I don’t believe science ever , or much, is used in origin subjects yet even if it was it would still just be a particular type of investigation process. Having a creator as a hypothesis is a excellent starting point for the universe. It is not that any outcome is possible but that the laws of nature are so complex any outcome we see can be accounted for. Anyways origin issues are seldom testable and its only establishments that really now and then change things in these areas.

Frank J -

I am always skeptical when a fellow “Darwinist” says that any anti-evolution activist (at least those not associated with “classic” YEC outfits like ICR, AIG) “is” a YEC. All but the “classic” OECs like Hugh Ross promote YEC via the big tent strategy, but few if any try to support it.

Your description of Hunter reminds me of Paul Nelson. Someone suggested that he might be an Omphalos creationist. I asked Nelson to confirm or deny that during one of his rare visits here, and he simply evaded the question.

The current battle of all ID/creationists is “against evolution”.

For now, “anything goes”, as long as it is an argument that can be broadly defined as “Christian” and denies biological evolution.

I strongly suspect that they attack the theory of evolution because they perceive it as the “weakest link” of skeptical, rational science - not because of actual weaknesses in the theory, but because the relationship of all life, and of all humans to each other and to close primate relatives, pushes emotional buttons for some people.

The obsession is to “destroy evolution”.

Could they turn on each other, in an imaginary world in which “evolution has been defeated”. I’m sure they would. The history of early Christianity may provide an example (this comment is not meant to be disrespectful to practicing Christians, nor to express an opinion on the theological controversies that occurred during the early stages of Christianity). Once paganism was more or less officially defeated, various

Happy Thanksgiving, Steve P.

I’m not sure if you celebrate it where you live, but I guess you have reasons for disappearing again without answering my simple question (I checked the other thread too). I notice that no other evolution-denier has answered it either. If/when you return, I have more questions. For one, you and Behe seem to disagree where that “edge” is.

Mike Elzinga Wrote:

Maybe it is time to have a runoff to determine who is right.

Before we even get to their “theories” (which at least the 3 that I know of refuse to test), can we even get them to agree on the age of life and common descent?

Mike Elzinga Wrote:

Philip Bruce Heywood’s “Superconduction plus the Earth, Moon, Sun gravitational system imparting intelligence to electrons.”

Intelligent electrons? Well this is his lucky day!

harold Wrote:

I strongly suspect that they attack the theory of evolution because they perceive it as the “weakest link” of skeptical, rational science - not because of actual weaknesses in the theory, but because the relationship of all life, and of all humans to each other and to close primate relatives, pushes emotional buttons for some people.

The end of your comment was apparently cut off, but in the meantime:

I agree that the “coming from monkeys” is more offensive to the rank and file than the “randomness” of mutations and the “cruelty” of natural selection that the activists obsess over. Yet they are not at all bothered by people like Behe who plainly concede common descent or people like Dembski who don’t rule it out. The ones who are offended are the YEC leaders, particularly the AIG folk. I could be wrong, but that makes me suspect that, in a world where “Darwinism” is defeated (which I can’t imagine outside of a totalitarian theocracy) the “don’t ask, don’t tell” big tent would prevail. IOW, it would be OK if you accept common descent as long as you say the politically correct thing - that God intervened at some point. And as long as you don’t challenge anyone who insists that “kinds” were created independently from nonliving matter, and/or disagree on when key events occurred.

If I’m wrong and there is a big battle over the “correct” interpretation of Genesis, I don’t see any reason why the “heliocentric YEC” compromise that was concocted in the 20th century to placate different factions would necessarily prevail.

Robert Byers said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter’s argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. …

The error here is that the object in origin subjects is not to do science but to discovers the origins of things. I don’t believe science ever , or much, is used in origin subjects yet even if it was it would still just be a particular type of investigation process. Having a creator as a hypothesis is a excellent starting point for the universe. It is not that any outcome is possible but that the laws of nature are so complex any outcome we see can be accounted for.

Oh goody. So he is saying that there is no point in making scientific arguments then! Byers has a nice irrefutable argument that explains everything that is observed, but it also explains everything that isn’t observed, and thus explains nothing. No point arguing with him (but we already knew that).

harold said:

Robert Byers -

I see you got a lot of responses, so I’ll keep it short.

You are contradicting yourself.

I’ve never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

Excellent. So Frances Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, all modern popes, President James Carter, and all the others who say that there is no conflict between acceptance of the theory of evolution and Christianity are correct.

So why do you waste your time arguing about evolution?

There is a reason for Christians to accept YEC. it is what the bible says. Its gods word. where else do we know anything of God and salvation? How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.? Its important to fight for the true faith in the world of human knowledge. Its important to lead mankind, as evangelical christians did by creating the modern world, in getting right how the natural world works. Creationism is true, progressive, and mandatory for thinking people involved in the natual world.

Wait a second. This is the categorical opposite of what you just said above. Here, you don’t say the word “damned”, but it’s impossible to read this any other way. Everyone is damned if they don’t choose YOUR version of YEC.

Which is it?

Let me remind you of my original point.

“Under Christian theology, basically, either - 1) everyone who does not accept strict YEC is damned (some sects), or 2) those who accept Jesus as their savior are saved, despite different interpretations of Genesis.

If it is the former, then everyone who accepts mainstream science is damned, but so is every ID/creationist who does not outright preach YEC. (And those who may “secretly” believe it but pretend not to are damned for bearing false witness.)

If it is the latter, then “OEC” is no problem, but neither is the theory of evolution.

Either way, there is no logical reason for sincere Christians to be especially concerned with the theory of evolution. Either everything that deviates from YEC, including any expression of “ID” that deviates from YEC, and all of science, must be condemned, or none of it needs to be condemned.”

ITS number two. Yet being saved is not the end of Christian life and witness and accuracy. Mostly its difficult for a person to be saved and not accept the main points in Genesis because its a package deal. The confidence in the bible is that its the word of God. so attacking one part is a threat to all. Its very important to fight for Genesis because it makes the case for all of scripture. its true and its presumptions are important for thinking people on issues of this faith. One might say it is the thinking person who needs to see Genesis is accurate. Also it claims it is accurate and therefore it is to be defended as such. Indeed the whole story of cHristianity is based on the whole bible. Biblical creationism is a fantastic important thing to defend. The truth, the origins, the foundations of the faith.

Its very important to fight for Genesis because it makes the case for all of scripture. its true and its presumptions are important for thinking people on issues of this faith. One might say it is the thinking person who needs to see Genesis is accurate.

Oh, goodie! A simple answer. The text is always correct.

Um, but should I think that Genesis 1 thru 2.4A is the correct order of creation, or is the order in 2.4B right?

Did Noah take two of each animal (Gen 6:20) or seven (Gen 7:9) of each animal or only seven of the clean ones even though 6:20 says two of every sort ?

Are there properly 10 commandments (Exodus 20:2) 13 commandments (Deuteronomy 5:6) or 17 commandments (Exodus 34:11)?

(Personally, I’m hoping for 10 or 13, because I like cheeseburgers, and if we go with the Deuteronomy version that gets me in trouble).

And, importantly for Tiger Woods these days, Just how should adulterers be punished? Should they be be executed (Leviticus 20:10) or not punished at all (John 8:3)?

Hi Nick,

I’m usually embarrassed by Cornelius Hunter’s arguments. Is there anyway we can trade him for one of your ID critics?

Meanwhile, I’m curious if you’ve looked at my recent thread at TT:

http://telicthoughts.com/wondering-about-t-urf13/

Bilbo said:

Hi Nick,

I’m usually embarrassed by Cornelius Hunter’s arguments. Is there anyway we can trade him for one of your ID critics?

Meanwhile, I’m curious if you’ve looked at my recent thread at TT:

http://telicthoughts.com/wondering-about-t-urf13/

Bilbo, if you have questions about T-urf13, why not just go to the source - here or here - and ask? TT isn’t exactly the best place to discuss this subject.

Robert Byers said: The bible is always right about right and wrong by the way.

Oh, that’s a very interesting statement. Do you actually believe that?

If you actually believe that the bible is always right about right and wrong, then you’d have to beleive that it’s right to offer your daughters up to be raped by a mob, as Lot, described in the bible as a righteous man, did. You’d have to believe that eating shellfish is an abomination (specifically mentioned as such in Leviticus) but that raping a child after murdering her parents is perfectly okay (the taking of female virgins as spoils of war is not only condoned but commanded). You’d have to believe that slavery is right, as the bible never gets around to saying it’s wrong. You’d have to believe that cursing a fig tree because it failed to produce fruit out of season (that is, punishing it for not doing the impossible) is perfectly acceptable, as Jesus himself is recorded as doing such a thing. You’d have to believe that it’s right to punish children for the actions of their ancestors, actions they had no control over. You’d have to believe that genocide is right (exactly how many civilizations does the bible list the isrealites being divinely comanded to exterminate?), but that calling someone a fool is so evil as to put one at risk of hellfire (even though the bible actually does this).

In short, Robert, if you actually believe what you said about the bible always being right about right and wrong, you’d have to be a monster. If you DON’T actually believe it, you’re just a lying sack of shit like every other creationist. So which are you? A fraud and bearer of false witness? Or a psychotic genocidal rapist with no concept of justice?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on November 25, 2009 12:07 AM.

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species: A Graphic Adaptation was the previous entry in this blog.

Meleagris gallopavo 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