Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FaithandEvolution.Org

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[This just in:]

New Website on Faith and Evolution Explores
if the Two are Friends or Foes?

Find out at FaithandEvolution.Org

SEATTLE – In recent years, debates over faith and evolution have continued to intensify. On the one hand, “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins have insisted that Darwinian evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. On the other hand, “new theistic evolutionists” like Francis Collins have assured people that Darwin’s theory is perfectly compatible with faith and need have no damaging cultural consequences.

Who is right? And why does it matter? A new website being launched today at www.faithandevolution.org by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute explores the issue in-depth.

“FaithandEvolution.Org is for anyone who wants to dig deeper into the scientific, social, and spiritual issues raised by Darwin’s theory, but who is tired of the limited options they are currently being offered by the media,” says Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center.

“Increasingly, the only voices being heard in the faith and evolution conversation come from two wings of the evolution lobby: atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, and a handful of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins. But there are a lot of thoughtful scientists and scholars who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory whose views aren’t being heard.”

“Thus, the first goal of FaithandEvolution.Org is to present the scientific information about evolution and intelligent design that is typically left out of the discussion,” says West. “A second goal is to tackle tough questions that are usually ignored about the consequences of Darwin’s theory for ethics, society, and religion.”

Visitors to FaithandEvolution.Org will find information addressing such questions as: Does evolution undermine belief in God? Are there scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution? What is the scientific evidence for intelligent design? And does Darwinism devalue human life?

FaithandEvolution.Org is packed with free tools and resources, including:

* Audio, video, and articles featuring leading scientists and scholars, including biologists Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, mathematicians William Dembski and David Berlinski, and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer.
* A questions page answering people’s top questions about evolution, intelligent design, and related issues; and topics pages addressing key topics such as theistic evolution, evolution and science, evolution and ethics, and evolution and culture.
* Curriculum ideas and discussion questions for small groups, Sunday School classes, adult educational programs, and private school science classes.
* A searchable database of thousands of articles about evolution and intelligent design, and a glossary of key scientific terms.

West notes that unlike most pro-Darwin sites dealing with faith and evolution, FaithandEvolution.Org contains a prominent section titled “Debates” highlighting the views of both supporters and critics of Darwin’s theory on a variety of contested issues.

“It’s ironic that many of the pro-Darwin groups that claim to be promoting ‘dialogue’ about science and religion are really offering only a monologue,” says West. “They do their best to exclude those who disagree with them. But we have nothing to fear from a free and open exchange of ideas. That’s why we decided to have a section of our site where people could explore divergent views on such issues as the evidence for intelligent design, the limits of Darwin’s theory, and the connection between Darwin’s theory and Social Darwinism.”

West explains that since its inception in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture has devoted most of its resources to supporting research, publication, and education about the scientific aspects of the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.

“Nothing is going to change that,” he says, adding that much of FaithandEvolution.Org is focused on presenting scientific information in a clear and understandable manner.

“But we’ve always been clear that science has larger worldview implications, and so we want to encourage open and informed discussion of the implications of Darwin’s theory as well. This has become especially important in recent years as both the ‘new atheists’ and the ‘new theistic evolutionists’ have tried to monopolize the faith and evolution conversation. FaithandEvolution.Org is an effort to inject some balance back into the discussion.”

For more information:
www.faithanevolution.org
www.evolutionnews.org
www.intelligentdesign.org

For Immediate Release
Contact: Anika Smith
Discovery Institute
(206) 292-0401 x155
asmith@discovery.org

Comments
Purely as an appeal to your selfish genes, you ’should’ be interested in a better local optimum.
Is there anywhere else that I can ground an appeal? In addition, I'm not sure I understand "better local optimum," but we can return to that later.
Yes, it is an uphill battle. Your genes control a lot of the chemistry of your thinking and it takes a lot to impose your will on them. That is why enlisting them with “brotherhood” thinking is important. Common descent teaches us that we share genes with every living thing on the planet.
Is not my will all about chemistry as well? Do genes have less control over my will than my thinking? You've said we can outwit our genes. Is this out-witting something that is inherited? How is it inherited if not through my genes? So, my genes can outwit my genes? And my chemistry can exert control over my chemistry? That sounds a bit like pulling myself up by my own bootstraps.
I can justify (to my selfish genes) my stewardship of the biosphere on the basis of brotherhood (aka selfishness).
Right, because of the "better local optimum" thing. Perhaps you could help me understand what you mean by this. Can you please order the following according to which will lead to a better local optimum? a. Loving my neighbor b. Loving Iraqis c. Loving endangered species d. Loving aliens e. Killing or sterilizing persons who might pollute the local gene pool f. Controlling breeding to enhance positive traits Note that demonstrating that one item on the list might be more successful than another at reaching a better local optimum doesn't really get me to "should," only to "maybe I should and maybe I shouldn't."Phinehas
June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Nakashima, Thank you. The reason I asked specifically about Japan is I'm very curious if the same deception is going on in other countries. This story was paid for by the BBC in England and Discovery in America. This makes them biased participants, unworthy of fair coverage. The media circus is more than just hoopla, it is deception. That is my concern. Unfortunately, today in America people get their information from TV and few other sources. Most would not know where to go for actual research paper, or take time to find out. I am fairly informed about the European countries, but not Asian. In case there was any confusion it was not my intention to make this personal. I am genuinely curios about your professional opinion and the climate in Japan on how research like this is handeled in general. I think over the last several years the Darwinist organizations in Europe and America have felt more pressure to make grand statements of missing links in TV and print. When behind the scences the research and debates among experts are much more reasoned, slower to make such broad claims and are largely unheard of in popular media here. And I love people to get excited about science, just not misled intentionally when the dust has not settled yet and final assignments, test and reviews not made. And please, no need to address me as Mr. unless you want to keep it formal and like me to do the same. Let me know if you do.DATCG
May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Mr DATCG, I'm not happy about the media circus that erupted around Ida! However, you asked about Japan, so I wanted to answer you.Nakashima
May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Nakashima, I asked you about the facts surrounding Ida and the propaganda. The controversy is not a right wing/left wing issue. So why the insults and sarcasm about dead Japanese gods to your people? You lost me on your point. Pleaes read factual criticism from a scientist, an evolutionist...
“Other researchers think rollouts like this one are just too risky. ‘On the one hand, I view it as a major task for scientists to translate their work for the public at large,’ says Beard. “On the other hand, when you make these breathless statements, you have to have the goods to back it up. Otherwise, we all lose credibility with the public. The only thing we have going for us that Hollywood and politicians don’t is objectivity.” —Christopher Beard, paleontologist, commenting in article by Ann Gibbons on last week’s media circus over Ida (05/19/2009), Science 29 May 2009: 324:5931, pp. 1124-1125, DOI: 10.1126/science.324_1124.
They have lost objectivity in the propaganda roll out of Ida. They sold their souls for nothing but a lemur and another empty branch. The actual research paper is more realistic and not propaganda. You don't need to worry about right wing politics. I got this directly from places like New York Times - a fading, far left cauldron of haters who still have some good journalist left that tell the truth. Ida is a joke. It is not a missing link, just missing evidence. You need to review all of the evolutionist knocking this fiasco for what it is. Nothing but Hollywood fiction writing and bamboozling of broadcast TV. Much of science today is losing credibility because in fact they have teamed with hollywood and far left politicians, going to extremes in many cases acting like fascist. Americans are losing their memories since WWII. But when Orwellian thought minders from the NSCE start telling scientist what they can or cannot write in a research paper, then it is the far left we must worry about. And don't forget, Hitler came from the National Socialist German Workers Party(NAZI in German), with Darwinian Eugenics, hating Christians and Jews So you can rant all you like about right wing, but the reality is in America today and Germany in the past, it was the Socialist Left Workers Party, the Marxist Stalinist that ruined the world. And today, the ACLU, a Communist inspired organization in America, close down all discussions and limit speech, attack and charge lawsuits against our cities, our states, our schools. You have no real argument politically, or it seems logically. How would u like it if some organization said you are not allowed to use a specific word in a publication? Wouldn't you be outraged? Well, that is what the far left groups are doing here, Darwinist, Atheist at the NCSE. It appears you could not defend Ida, so you attacked a strawman.DATCG
May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Cannuckian, Why do we think the BSA is an ideological organization? There is nothing wrong with government endorsing certain values i.e. duty, trustworthiness kindness etc. In fact, a society that doesn't demand it's government endorse those values is a society that is going to fail. In fact, iftribune7
May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
"It is government attempting to avoid an endorsement of a particular ideology, and rightfully so." Sorry, I realize that the lawsuit was leveled by the ACLU and not the government per se. Whatever motivations the ACLU had in this lawsuit (they could have had more levelhanded motivations and a better premise), I think they would have won the lawsuit on the government support of ideological organizations alone, without the appeal to religious speech. If they had worded it differently they might have won. I think you are right in pointing out their motivations, but ultimately, they were right in objecting to this governmental preference.CannuckianYankee
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Tribune7: "OK, hey wait a minute. . . why are kindergartners at a public school being subjected to a 'Coming Out Day'? Now I agree with you on that one, because it is obviously a government support of a particular ideology. The Boy Scout example, on the other hand is not. It is government attempting to avoid an endorsement of a particular ideology, and rightfully so. We have to pick our fights wisely.CannuckianYankee
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Hey, wait a minute! Let's see if the ACLU gets involved with this one. And if they do anybody care to take odds as to which side?tribune7
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
I think that conservative Christian organizations often go too far in believing that because traditionally these things have been allowed, for someone to say “hey, wait a minute….” OK, hey wait a minute. . . why are kindergartners at a public school being subjected to a "Coming Out Day"?tribune7
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
I don’t think it’s appropriate for the Boy Scouts to expect the government to provide them a place for its jamborees. They've been doing it at Fort AP Hill since 1981. Actually, they've been doing it since 1937 when the government let them camp at the Washington Monument. And the place to levy objections is not the courts but with the Congress or the President.tribune7
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
I don’t see how a lawsuit challenging having the government pay for Boy Scouts events is “anti-speech,” but whatever. Because the only reason they are suing is because of the Boy Scouts claims with regard to God and, maybe, it's opposition to homosexual scout leaders. They are seeking to end a tradition solely because of speech. That is anti-speech. You don't need to be Clarence Darrow to see this. ACLU defends the free speech rights of the KKK and Fred Phelps. I guess if I wanted to be snide I could note that Phelps is a Democrat (and one-time Al Gore delegate) and the KKK has been a traditional arm of that party. Maybe that one was for Old Time sake. The Klan and Phelps are without any following or significance. If the judgment against Phelps is overturned it would mean nothing to anybody but Phelps and the plaintiffs. When they tell a school board it must keep God out of a commencement address, every district in the country must take notice. When they harass Boy Scouts, they are attempting to get them to change policies.tribune7
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
Tribune, I'm afraid I agree with Ludwig on this, and I'm a conservative Christian. I don't think it's appropriate for the Boy Scouts to expect the government to provide them a place for its jamborees. It's not the job of government to do so. It's not an issue of free speech, because the Boy Scouts are quite free to find an adequate and appropriate private piece of land for their jamborees, and I don't thinkt the ACLU or any other organization could find an objection to that. I think that conservative Christian organizations often go too far in believing that because traditionally these things have been allowed, for someone to say "hey, wait a minute...." is an example of discrimination. To prefer the Boy Scouts for the use of this land over any other organization, is an example of misuse of government land - fair and simple. In fact, I would say that it's a practice of good stewardship and responsibility for religious organizations to be separate from any influence whatsoever from the government. By expecting favors from government, they violate this ideal. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world," and "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." This implies to me a complete separation of religion from government. I wouldn't, however, go so far as to say this implies that government officials cannot allow their moral imperatives to drive their official and legislative duties. Now I support what the boy scouts are doing, but they have the freedom and responsibility to do it somewhere else, without infringing on the equal rights of others. If they did that, then I would support them even more. My faith is not jeopardized because the Boy Scouts can no longer use government land. I noticed, however, that the lawsuit was struck down - but on a technicality.CannuckianYankee
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
tribune7, I don't see how a lawsuit challenging having the government pay for Boy Scouts events is "anti-speech," but whatever. I think it's more notable in this context that the ACLU defends the free speech rights of the KKK and Fred Phelps. (The ACLU filed an amicus brief before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Phelps's behalf seeking to overturn a $5 million judgment for defamation and intentional inflication of emotional distress won by the family of a U.S. Army solder killed in Iraq. The case was argued in January 2009 and should be decided fairly soon).Ludwig
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
Cannukian, consider the anti-speech cases in which the ACLU involves itself.tribune7
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
…and “tribune7? wrote: “I don’t believe that’s the ACLU’s position.” That’s your opinion, your belief. Well, yes. And it's based on observing inconsistencies in their actions as I noted. They defend the rights that come from the documents and laws they mention. They don’t defend rights that come from any particluar religion or god, because that would automatically seem to bias them against any other religions or other gods. Or is that your problem? I have a big problem with the notion that rights come from laws. Why don't you? Again, that’s your opinion. They have had the word “Liberties” in their name since 1920 . . . LOLOL That means a lot!tribune7
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
I just wanted to comment about the ACLU. If indeed they're mission is to uphold freedom of speech, and such mission is invited upon by those who feel their free spech has been violated (I will assume no ill will on their part in accepting invitations from people of differing socio-political pursuations), then could it be that they tend to defend people on the left primarily because they are invited to? (long sentence, I know). I'm not going to be quick to judge this any one way or the other. I think perhaps that right-leaning organizations or individuals are hesitant to "invite" the ACLU to defend them because of the perceptions gained by a history of successes defending liberal causes. I wouldn't put it past them to defend more conservative causes if the invitations came their way. Am I wrong about this?CannuckianYankee
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
PaulBurnett, ------"I was pointing out that his next book doesn’t seem to have much to do with science, which, as he is a leading intelligent design proponent, might tend to blur the connection of intelligent design with science, and diminish the precious differentiation some still try to maintain between intelligent design and religion. Just sayin’." Maybe read the book first?Clive Hayden
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Mr Phineas, Purely as an appeal to your selfish genes, you 'should' be interested in a better local optimum. Yes, it is an uphill battle. Your genes control a lot of the chemistry of your thinking and it takes a lot to impose your will on them. That is why enlisting them with "brotherhood" thinking is important. Common descent teaches us that we share genes with every living thing on the planet. I can justify (to my selfish genes) my stewardship of the biosphere on the basis of brotherhood (aka selfishness). Of course, using the classic "scaffolding" analogy of Cairns-Smith, we can dispense with this crude argument later on.Nakashima
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Phin: But this is rather confusing to me. If survival of genes is the basis for “nice” behavior, then in what way can mind’s (or anything’s) triumph over the gene be said to be a wonderful thing? How is it a wonderful thing? Nakashima: We can look down on ethnocentricity today, but it was not so long ago that even nation-state level fraternal feeling was not a given. “We must all hang together or we will all hang separately!” Our ability to think beyond our genes is slow and gradual in coming.
There seems to be an implied "ought" or two in your statment. Am I just projecting this, or are they actally there? Why should we think beyond our genes? Again, why is this a wonderful thing? I'm just not catching how your response addressed the question.
P: And why should the inclination to kill (provided it increases one’s own gene’s survival) be constrained? N: Nature, in doing a blind and contingent search, can only acheive a local optimum. Nature evolved feet, we invented the wheel. Nature evolved flapping wings, we invented the propeller. Our minds can invent solutions that nature cannot arrive at.
That's an interesting way of looking at the issue, but it seems to fall just a bit short to me. In your example, our inventions do not seem to be in opposition the way they are when it comes to the issue at hand. So, nature invented the selfish gene, and we invented unselfishness?
N: We can outwit our genes. That is a marvelous thing. Not only can I love my neighbor as myself, I can love Iraqis as myself. I can love endangered species as myself. I can love aliens from another planet as myself. (And they don’t even have DNA!) Wow!
Maybe we can. Speaking for myself, I find doing so a constant, uphill battle. In the face of such a struggle, I'm looking for something that can take me beyond "can" to "should" or even "must." Otherwise, why struggle? You write as if you assume a "should" exists, but I can't for the life of me figure out how you are arriving at it.Phinehas
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
I quoted the ACLU’s mission statement “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” ...and "tribune7" wrote: "I don’t believe that’s the ACLU’s position." That's your opinion, your belief. "tribune7" continued: "I think they are being dishonest about their agenda, and I think it’s a bad agenda, namely the claim that rights come from laws rather than God as per the DOI." They defend the rights that come from the documents and laws they mention. They don't defend rights that come from any particluar religion or god, because that would automatically seem to bias them against any other religions or other gods. Or is that your problem? "tribune7" continued: "The ACLU is not interested in liberty." Again, that's your opinion. They have had the word "Liberties" in their name since 1920, and have over a half-million members whose opinion differs from your opinion.PaulBurnett
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
PaulBurnett--The ACLU’s mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Do you oppose that? I don't believe that's the ACLU's position. I think they are being dishonest about their agenda, and I think it's a bad agenda, namely the claim that rights come from laws rather than God as per the DOI. I have a big problem with that, and you should too. With regard to the requirement that the ACLU be invited, how do you know they weren't, firstly, and, secondly, what does it seem they are only "invited" to certain cases? Why does the ACLU involve themselves in lawsuits demanding school boards prohibit references to God in commencement speeches . They can certainly turn down the invitation to participate. The ACLU is not interested in liberty. David, again, I don't the the ACLU is an honest broker. I think courts should stay out of the school curriculum whether it be Dawkins or Dembski or the Bible or Nietzsche. Leave it to legislative bodies. Now, they do have an obligation to defend the right of conscience, prohibit requirements and tests for belief. But there is nothing wrong with giving a Christian an understanding of Nietzsche or an atheist an understanding of Scripture. Of course, what we teach the children will be upon what society ends up being based. Personally, I would much prefer one based on the axiom that there is a universal law to love our neighbor to which must one day account, than one based on the idea of efficient production for the benefit of the collective as determined by those who successfully navigate an incestuous credentialling system.tribune7
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Hi all, I just wanted to confirm that "anyone" can comment here at Uncommon Descent as long they are respectful of others. There has been some confusion about this.SaintMartinoftheFields
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
tribune7, you might be interested in the ACLU's Statement on the Bible in Public Schools, which reads in part:
First, while it is constitutional for public schools to teach children about religion, it is unconstitutional to use public schools to advance particular religious beliefs. . . . Second, the structure of the specific course curriculum, including the choice of textbooks, supporting materials, and teacher outlines, should be developed with a conscientious effort to avoid advancing particular religious beliefs. . . . Third, if public schools decide to offer religion or Bible courses, teachers should possess the relevant academic training and should teach the course as a proper academic subject.
FWIW, I would support a school teaching The God Delusion in certain contexts, like a philosophy class, but would oppose efforts to teach it in a science class.David Kellogg
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
"tribune7" (#73) wrote: "Here are similar cases: In this the ACLU took a position...In this the ACLU was silent...Did the ACLU object to this?" In those three cases the ACLU is not mentioned in two of the three articles. If the ACLU is not invited to participate, it typically does not participate. How is its non-participation then its "fault"? "tribune7" continued: "The agenda of the ACLU is not one of free speech." "Free speech" is only one of the ACLU's agenda items - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Positions for a more complete list. The ACLU's mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Do you oppose that?PaulBurnett
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden (#72) wrote: "You don’t know Dr. Dembski." That's true - I only know the "Hero of Dover" (whose testimony would have swayed Judge Jones to rule in favor of intelligent design) by his works (and non-works). I was pointing out that his next book doesn't seem to have much to do with science, which, as he is a leading intelligent design proponent, might tend to blur the connection of intelligent design with science, and diminish the precious differentiation some still try to maintain between intelligent design and religion. Just sayin'.PaulBurnett
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
PaulBurnett-- Here are similar cases: In this the ACLU took a position In this the ACLU was silent Did the ACLU object to this? How would "Coming Out Day" not be a violation of the religious freedom of Evangelicals or Devout Catholics or Orthodox Jews or Moslems? The agenda of the ACLU is not one of free speech.tribune7
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
PaulBurnett, ------"A book titled “The End of Christianity,” published by Holman Bible Publishers (previously Broadman & Holman Publishers, a division of Lifeway Christian Resources), authored by a recognized intelligent design proponent who is a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and who is known to be interested in the “Bible Code” and faith healing does not sound like a book that will correctly illustrate the differences between intelligent design and religion." You don't know Dr. Dembski.Clive Hayden
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
"SaintMartinoftheFields" (#69) wrote: "Professor Dembski also has a new book on the way. It looks really interesting." A book titled "The End of Christianity," published by Holman Bible Publishers (previously Broadman & Holman Publishers, a division of Lifeway Christian Resources), authored by a recognized intelligent design proponent who is a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and who is known to be interested in the "Bible Code" and faith healing does not sound like a book that will correctly illustrate the differences between intelligent design and religion.PaulBurnett
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
tribune7 (#65) opined: "If a school taught the God Delusion, the ACLU would either not oppose it or join in accusing those trying to remove it of censorship." Can you quote an ACLU position statement proving that statement? Or can you cite an ACLU case which supports your opinion? Or did you just make it up?PaulBurnett
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Professor Dembski also has a new book on the way. It looks really interesting. Here is the link: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdfSaintMartinoftheFields
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply