Ruse on Dawkins’ Delusion

_{Mark

February 19, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Michael Ruse on Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” (heavily edited)

“God is getting a bit of a bashing these days. Above all, there is the smash-hit best seller The God Delusion, by the brilliant science writer Richard Dawkins. Why this sudden enthusiasm for atheism? The new skeptics are writing brilliant works, bringing reason and evidence to bear on the God question, and showing in altogether new ways why religion is false and dangerous to boot.

Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). Dawkins is entirely ignorant of the fact that no believer – has ever thought that arguments are the best support for belief. John Henry Newman wrote: “I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design.”

Dawkins is a man truly out of his depth. Does he honestly think that no philosopher or theologian has ever thought of or worried about the infinite regress of the cosmological argument?

One person who comes in for withering scorn in The God Delusion is me. Even though I am not a Christian, I nevertheless think that one can be a Christian with integrity and that Darwinism does not in itself preclude Christianity. In fighting fundamentalism – from scientific creationism to intelligent design theory – one should be willing to work with liberal Christians.

Suppose it is true – that if you are a Darwinian, then you cannot be a Christian. How then does one answer the creationist who objects to the teaching of Darwinism in schools? If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? Perhaps, given the U.S. Constitution, the creationists are right and Darwinism should be excluded. ”

MICHAEL RUSE ISIS volume 98, Issue 4, Page 814–816, Dec 2007

Comments

-----Atom: You have made a great point at @48. -----You write, "Again, even if ID was not associated with YEC, it would still be called as much. Look at Matzke and Forrest and all that “ID = Creationism” garbage they know is false, yet still perpetuate." If the creationism stigma did not exist they would have had to invent it.StephenB_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

PannenbergOmega, I read his book where he takes on Dawkins but it was all on theology and little if any on biology. So I assumed he accepted gradualism as the means for evolution. I had no feeling that he supported ID. IF someone has a different interpretation please feel free to add to this. It was a couple years ago that I read the book.jerry_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

[...] Michael Ruse on Dawkins’ Delusion (Uncommon Descent) [...]Thinking Christian » Links_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Is Alister McGrath a Theistic Evolutionist? I'm afraid I don't know much about him, other than that he debates Dawkins.PannenbergOmega_{February 20, 2008
February
02
Feb
20
20
2008
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

"but that doesn’t stop the TE’s from claiming that a design inference should not be regarded as a legitimate scientific process." Is it unreasonable to take this position though ? Anti-realist approaches to science are perfectly legitimate, although they do pay the price of abandoning the search for truth and substitute it for a simple pragmatism. Frankly I think it is on this point anybody who say "ID cannot be science" needs to be forced to confront what such a claim means. "Consider the theistic evolutionist who says the following: [a] granted the world was designed, however, [b] methodological naturalism requires that I may not consider the explanatory filter under any conditions or support those who do." I don't really have a problem with people who want to do that unless they are unwilling to take seriously the implications of that position. Once you say the above (which I would stress really is a legitimate thing to say from a philosophy of science perspective depending on what view ofg science you take) then you commit yourself to abandoning science as capable of understanding truth about the world. I don't really see this as a problem if someone wants to do that, as long as they don't then try to lie and pretend that science can still function as an arbiter of truth. "t was the Catholic theistic evolutionists who came down hardest on him" I don't have much patience for catholics that don't take their faith seriously. "Are there any theistic evolutionists out there who have ever taken the side of an ID scientist, not to the point of agreeing with the arguments, but even to the point of acknowledging that ID deserves a fair hearing?" Mike Behe did exactly that. He was a TE until a light went on. I agree with you that the TE is confused and potentially dangerously misguided, but they do come around. I suspect you are better off letting them face the reality of the people they have gotten themselves into bed with on their own rather than attacking them though. Show them what their "allies" are really like rather than attacking them.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Jason: I am not sure what you are saying here. All of the players in this drama, including TE's, agree that design is "apparent," but that doesn't stop the TE's from claiming that a design inference should not be regarded as a legitimate scientific process. The subtle differences among TEs are real, but they somehow melt away when the subject of methodological naturalism is brought into the discussion. Consider the theistic evolutionist who says the following: [a] granted the world was designed, however, [b] methodological naturalism requires that I may not consider the explanatory filter under any conditions or support those who do. Doesn't that cancel out the apparent open-mindedness? What practical difference is there between a Richard Dawkins, who denies that God exists and insists that science does not address the supernatural, and a Theistic evolutionist who acknowledges God but insists, nevertheless, that the effects of God’s handiwork may not be considered from a scientific perspective. Each claims that ID is not science; each is willing to militate against the ID scientist. There is one difference, however. Dawkins is not going to recruit Christians into his camp as enemies of intelligent design, because he knows that Christianity and Darwinism are incompatible. The theistic evolutionist, deluded as he is, will much more easily persuade the Christian that Darwinism is indeed quite compatible with Christianity and therefore win a new convert to the anti-ID camp. There is just enough sugar in the poison to make it palatable. Sure, some TE's are less hostile to ID than others, but they are hostile nonetheless. When Cardinal Shonborn expressed sympathy for the ID movement, it was the Catholic theistic evolutionists who came down hardest on him. Suddenly, the subtle differences among them became less of an issue than their differences with him. So, I ask the follow up question: Are there any theistic evolutionists out there who have ever taken the side of an ID scientist, not to the point of agreeing with the arguments, but even to the point of acknowledging that ID deserves a fair hearing? If not, then why am I getting all this resistance from those who say I am being too hard on the TE’s.?StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

My favorite quip: "I confess that it is the first time in my life that I have felt sorry for the ontological argument." Dawkins is a highly skilled writer, but this book should embarrass any self-respecting atheist.bevets_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Hmm ... too keep blathering, perhaps this is the way to frame the argument in future. If Darwin claims to reduce the watch to a fancy rock and not a designed object after all, then the Darwinist really needs to put up or shut up. Obviously this challenge has been pushed aside for years, but I don't think the nature of the claim has been pressed strongly enough. Oh well, anyway, just food for thought.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

I should add, sorry, Darwinism claims to remove design from nature by showing the process by which it is created. Darwin's idea seeks to reduce the watch that has been found to just another fancy rock that can be explained by natural processes. I would contend Darwin demotes the watch to a rock, it doesn't show how a real watch can get there. If you see what I am saying. I'm probably expressing it badly.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

"the rise of Charles Darwin and the refutation of Paley" I'm not sure it is fair to say Paley was ever refuted as such. Some of the natural theology stuff was over the top and a bit "completely out to lunch", but I think Paley's argument is as sound today as it ever was in the past. There are political/religious reasons for why it fell out of favour but I don't think it was ever abandoned because the argument was shown to be wrong.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

"Even Richard Dawkins concedes that an intuition of design about the natural world is perfectly reasonable and almost overwhelming at times. So clearly in some sense design is not just “detectable” but “obvious”." This is why we might win.PannenbergOmega_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

I don't have the quote right in front of me, but I do think Ruse is one of those fine chaps who thinks that science--all study--must be at least provisionally atheistic, or simply CEASE to be true science. Then we have this: "Dawkins is entirely ignorant of the fact that no believer - has ever thought that arguments are the best support for belief. John Henry 'Newman wrote: “I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design.'" Ruse, like Allen Orr, has good and well-meaning sentiments, but while this is a nice gesture, it worries me. Not getting too much ideology into all this, and not saying that liberal Christians are not just that, and only that, I think you have to be careful whom your allies are. Liberal Christians tend to equivicate on a number of ideas--not just Darwinian descent. And while Dawkins is surely ignorant of much of theology and the "what" of what Christians might think as a group (as Ruse points out), it is however simply not true that arguements FOR belief and not simply "belief" have not come and gone before. Ever since the Kaalam and the Anslem argument others have branched off to show others how/what might be at work in the Cosmos. More rencently the whole ID project seems geared at putting "design" back into the swing of things after it fell out of favor with the rise of Charles Darwin and the refutation of Paley. Either God has something to do with the Known Universe and the granduer of life, or does not. Those are the chocies. While ID dosen't specify the Designer's identity and simply brushes aside the arguments about genetic imperfections, it seems to hold to a monotheistic belief in an entity that can do just about everything. Some people no doubt believe just because they do. It's true that most people I talk to who're professing believers in one thing or another don't expend great energy in seeking out abstruse arguments or Design issues. Others enjoy learning about the undergirding of that faith or if in the Doubtful about other details that might point to Design parameters.S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

"By TE I mean any evolutionist who posits that God was somehow involved with the creation of the world, but that he did not leave clues in the form of detectable design" Wouldn't this claim hinge critically on the meaning of the word "detectable". You may well be talking past each other on this point, which is probably best avoided. Even Richard Dawkins concedes that an intuition of design about the natural world is perfectly reasonable and almost overwhelming at times. So clearly in some sense design is not just "detectable" but "obvious". On the other hand, the specific level of design and understanding may not be easily nailed down or determined in any particular case. How designed is any random rock you pick up off the ground ? In a theological sense the random stone is every bit as much designed and purposed as the most intricate molecular motor but the amount of design and so on is undetectable in the case of the rock, at least for any meaningful sense. I agree it is mistaken to claim that much of what we see in nature is not clear evidence of design, but I can see why some people for a variety of reasons stop shy of wanting to mark things as designed. Some people might do it for self-serving reasons related to academic standing and "fear or man", but because some people do it for that reason does not mean everybody does. To claim that this is the case is as stupid as certain left wing idiots claiming that any difference in ratios of ethic groups or sexes in a work place is the result of racism of sexism. Maybe it is, but there are lots of others entirely mundane reasons for such observations that are nothing to do with intentional "misdeeds" on anybodies part.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

"I further insists that the so-called theistic evolutionists are they are called today are really Christian Darwinists under another name, because they are positing an undguided process." I'm not sure. I think to some degree people may just be talking past each other. I may be mistaken but i'll opt for charitable understandings from people where possible. "Jerry, seems to disagree with me, suggesting that they are proposing a process that is both guided and unguided." I guess it depends exactly what is meant. A process cannot obviously be guided and unguided at the same time and in the same way. That would be a contradiction. But it could be the case that a process is set in motion such that it will reach a desired outcome without guidance during its progression. The would seem to be a "guide/unguided" process. But even something like that would still be a "creationist approach" to someone like Dawkins or Dennett and would be incompatible with "Darwinism" in the sense they mean it.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

"Mr. Rennie, have you ever thought of emigrating to the United States? With all due respect to the UK." Thanks :) Actually I live in Australia. And i'm in no rush to move unless there are jobs to be had on arriving.Jason Rennie_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Jerry, my plate is full with the TE's that visit this website and their enablers. By TE I mean any evolutionist who posits that God was somehow involved with the creation of the world, but that he did not leave clues in the form of detectable design. Many TEs say the world was designed, but that such design is not detectable. They cop out by saying that the "design is in the evolutionary process," which nevertheless cannot be detected. that is there position. If you disagree with me, then I suggest you read them further. If they did believe in detectable design, then they would be ID and not TE. Otherwise the term TE has no meaning. So, I don't know what you mean when you say that they don't take that position. Again, I have been asking this simple question for a long time and no one has yet stepped up to the plate to answer it. I think it is a fair question, and I don't believe you have even acknowledged it, much less address it. You say that I would not fare to well in another venue, but I have already had encouters with similar groups and they cannot answer the question either. As I have tried to point out many times, the TE's harm the ID movement much more even than the YEC's. At least the YEC's are supportive even if they are somewhat stigmatized. At least they will give straight answers to straight questions, and at least they are consistent. Is there anyone else out there that will step up to the challenge. If you are a TE or a Christian Darwinist, how do you reconcile your Biblical teaching that design is real with your Darwinist ideology that design is illusory?StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB, you are right in thinking TE is inconsistent with Scripture. The biggest problem is that evolutionary processes are random like an explosion in a boiler factory. The Bible is permeated with the concept of the Sovereignty of God who lets not a sparrow fall in vain, Calling a bird of prey from the East, a man of my council from a far country and who has numbered the hairs on your head. Furthermore, the random process approach means that the rational processes of the human mind are more or less another boiler explosion result. This means that rationality is not the "image of God in man" so there is no necessary conection between reason and ontological reality. This is amajor flaw in Humanistic thinking which reduces it to something resembling Kantianism. There is no necessary way "the real is rational and the rational is real". Are there rational arguments for evolution? It's no more significant than a preferance for chocolate ice cream.Parmenides_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Atom: With all due respect, that is your take on the science. As someone pointed out in the case of Peter Borger, he would scientifically disagree with you. As would many other very well-educated YECs. I'm sure that Borger would think that he's scientifically disagreeing with me but the scientific evidence clearly shows that he would be wrong, sorry. And he would also be wrong theologically. As I pointed out in a parallel thread, in an article I addressed to YEC Dr. Giem, how can you have a literal day having a literal morning and a literal evening three days before the sun was created? How can that be? Especially since the same scripture insists that the sun (the main luminary) was created to govern the day? Obviously there are problems with either the text of Genesis or with our understanding of the words. After all, these are extremely ancient texts and something in the meaning of words is bound to be lost over the centuries. The whole YEC stance sounds more like some people simply refuse to admit that the doctrine they were raised with could be mistaken. It's human nature. I think it's time that they confess that they are not infallible with regard to their Biblical interpretation. Again, I do not question the faith of any Christian but I do question the logic of some. God does not insult our intelligence. We should not insult his.Mapou_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

bfast, you said "When challenged about all of the other science that implies an old earth, he responds by saying that he is a biologist, not one trained in the other sciences. His science, he contends, requires either regular miraculous intervention to undo the destruction of deleterious mutations, or it requires a young biology." I find this an absolutely incredible statement. There are thousands of species which are described in writing for at least 4,000 years and none of these species have deteriorated including man. This is 2/3 of the supposedly age of the earth. Such a statement should impeach Borger as a source for anything in the area of biology. How would Borger explain the thousands of bird species, different types of beetles, zillions of fish varieties, the dispersion of like animals to a specific continent, etc. etc. Where did they come from? It is statements like Borger's that give ID a bad name.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I suggest you take your understandings on TE's and go to ASA and challenge them. I don't think you will fair well because you will be dealing with people who quote the scriptures more than anyone here and some are trained theologians. I don't agree with them on several issues but understand them and I do not see any of the things you are claiming in their positions. So have at with them and see if you can pin them down to what you say they are. They have written several books on evolution so they have a paper trail you can use. By the way they recently had a discussion on what it meant to be a TE and as far as could tell there was no consensus amongst them. It all turns to theology and not to science very quickly. The one thing that seems to unite the most vocal is their dislike for ID. A few are very sympathetic to ID. One thing you will have to recognize is that there are few if any Catholics there. Many Catholics hold the TE point of view and I doubt you will find any Catholic who does not believe in the obvious design in the world, just how God created that design. I would not want to be with you when you confronted a Catholic theologian who is a TE and told him he was going against the teachings of his Church.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Jerry, you continue to miss the point. Theistic evolutionists are irrational because they misuse and misrepresent the very religion they claim to believe in ,a misreprentation that prompts them to misinterpret the data. They say they are Christians. Well, what is the teaching of Christianity? Christianity teaches, among other things, that God created a universe that is designed and, that that same design is perceptible But these so-called Christians obviously do not believe what their religion teaches. In fact, they believe the very opposite. They believe that God did not create any such universe at all. They insist that the Biblical God could not have done what the Biblical God said he did do, that is, create a world in which design is apparent. They go on to say that any such design is only an illusion. Why? The God described in the Scriptures they claim to believe in is, nevertheless, not, IN THEIR OPIION sufficiently powerful for them, so they arbitrarily characterize him in a different way. Not in the way God describes creation, but in a way that they would prefer to think about the creation, Biblically justified or not. Then, they take that new paradigm and interpret the data accordingly. That is irrational. -----Jerry: “One of their problems is that they subscribe to Darwinian processes because of theological processes. I described this in the thread that Dembski took down. They will look at ID as leading to a God that is not as powerful as theirs. I have some sympathy for this as I always looked at ID leading to a constant tinkering that is beneath an omnipotent God.” Well, that is your opinion and their opinion. It is not my opinion, nor is it Biblical teaching. It may well be that God chooses to tinker for a lot or reasons, not because he cannot do otherwise but because he has good reasons for doing so. William Dembski has pointed out that the “engineer” analogy may not be the proper one to use. It may well be that God acts like an “orchestra leader,” conducting his creation over time. Maybe, that is because his people are interacting with his creation and need some kind of supervision. God could have caused the Red Sea to part by using natural means. He could have set the flood up through billions of years of chance happening. On the other hand, he may have just stepped in and done it. Maybe God really did part the Red Sea. Maybe, for all we know, God commands his angels to regulate every physical law in the universe in such a way that those same laws can be measured and used for good. Does it mean that God cannot operate from a distance even though he sometimes prefers to be up close and personal? Does it mean that God is no longer omnipotent because He chooses send his Son to become God incarnate when he could have just as easily found a way to do it without intervening in mans affairs? I don’t have any idea, of course, but that is the point. Neither do the Theistic evolutionists. It is not rational to take one’s own unwarranted interpretation of Scripture and impose it on the evolutionary process, especially when that interpretation is ANTI-SCRIPTURAL. That is a good example of “stacking the deck” rather following where the evidence leads. And yes, it is irrational. It is bad theology, bad philosophy and bad science. Most of all, it is incredibly presumptuous to think that our uninformed opinion about which tasks challenge God the most should cause us to rewrite Scripture and then impose it on our science.StephenB_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Mapou, With all due respect, that is your take on the science. As someone pointed out in the case of Peter Borger, he would scientifically disagree with you. As would many other very well-educated YECs. jerry, Again, even if ID was not associated with YEC, it would still be called as much. Look at Matzke and Forrest and all that "ID = Creationism" garbage they know is false, yet still perpetuate. Again, I think your guns are aimed at the wrong row of soldiers.Atom_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Atom: How respected are OECs by the DarwinMats? How many OEC articles pass peer review? How many OECs are held up as examples of rationality? It has nothing to do with being respected by others, in my opinion. It has to do with being true to the scientific evidence wherever it leads. It's about being true to the principles of good science. If the YECs don't like it, so be it. At least, that's the way I and many others see it. Besides, it's not as if the IDers are being flooded with cash from their YEC connections anyway. Where are the mega million dollar labs that are doing ID research? I don't see them. I am a believing Christian and I think that YECs should fall in line with the science or fall by the wayside. Sorry.Mapou_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Atom, I agree that their basic disagreement is not the age of the earth but the implications for their ideology. But Matzke once said he is happy that ID associates with the YEC's because it is so much easier to then discredit ID because of this association. ID has no credibility as long as it openly associates with anyone that professes bad science. How do you separate the two and why should anyone listen to ID proponents as long as they have this association. How do you tell the difference. We can on this site but it has taken a long time for many. It is not the Darwinist that you have to reach, but the average person and right now they are being inoculated against ID because of the YEC connection.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Addendum: If you still think OEC views will be safe from vilification and misrepresentation, please see Guillermo Gonzalez.Atom_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

jerry, I'm fine with being labeled anything they want to throw at me - they already do, trust me. As I said, I think you're overestimating the impact of disavowing YEC. How respected are OECs by the DarwinMats? How many OEC articles pass peer review? How many OECs are held up as examples of rationality? So misrepresentation of ID will not be as bad if we disavow YEC? PZ and Dawkins will make peace? You're kidding yourself if you think the age of the earth has much to do with how DarwinMats view ID. Even OEC is an attack on their religion, so don't expect the misrepresentation to stop once you adopt an OEC stance.Atom_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

"There is so much disparate evidence of an old universe everywhere we look that if the universe was created a mere 6000 years ago then whoever or whatever did the creating went to an awful lot of trouble to make it appear to be vastly older than that." - DaveScot Which might seem odd to an engineer. But not to an artist or an author. It would be impossible to accurately date any of my paintings or books based on internal evidence alone - and when it comes to the study of the universe (without revelation), internal evidence is all we've got.Gerry Rzeppa_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

StephenB, you said "I said originally that Christian Darwinists are irrational because they profess a religion that celebrates the perceptibility God’s design, while they hold to a science that disavows it." No, No, No!! They may misinterpret the data but that does not mean they are irrational. They see massive amounts of species determined by Darwinian principles and make the mistake that all can arise by this process. One of their problems is that they subscribe to Darwinian processes because of theological processes. I described this in the thread that Dembski took down. They will look at ID as leading to a God that is not as powerful as theirs. I have some sympathy for this as I always looked at ID leading to a constant tinkering that is beneath an omnipotent God. Intervening with the free willed limited knowledgeable humans is one thing but having to intervene in the system that He set up from the beginning seems to be a little bit beneath an omnipotent God. That is their rationale and I do not view it as irrational. I ascribed to it till I got curious and started to investigate the issue nine years ago. My guess is that what really happened is beyond our comprehension. I have come to my conclusions by reading what Behe, Dembski and others have written and I see nothing in what they wrote that would contradict my assessment. In the Design of Life, Dembski and Wells describe natural selection leading to short fat humans in high latitudes because of cold and British starlings that morphed in the US because of environmental pressures. I doubt they would disagree with anything I wrote.jerry_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Hi Mr. Scot, thank you for these examples. About the Genesis account, whether one believes it or not, can be interpreted many ways without taking a biblically 'revisionist' interpretation.PannenbergOmega_{February 19, 2008
February
02
Feb
19
19
2008
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply