Science “Proves” Nothing

_{Barry Arrington
October 1, 2014

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

When someone says “the science is settled” one of two things is true: (1) they know better and are lying; or (2) they are deeply ignorant about the philosophy of science. Geraint Lewis, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Sydney writes:

. . . science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury. But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in. In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data.

But no verdict of absolute guilt or innocence is ever returned, as evidence is continually gathered and more suspects are paraded in front of the court. All the jury can do is decide that one suspect is more guilty than another.

In the mathematical sense, despite all the years of researching the way the universe works, science has proved nothing. Every theoretical model is a good description of the universe around us, at least within some range of scales that it is useful.

But exploring into new territories reveals deficiencies that lower our belief in whether a particular description continues to accurately represent our experiments, while our belief in alternatives can grown.

Will we ultimately know the truth and hold the laws that truly govern the workings of the cosmos within our hands?

While our degree of belief in some mathematical models may get stronger and stronger, without an infinite amount of testing, how can we ever be sure they are reality?

I think it is best to leave the last word to one of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, on what being a scientist is all about:

I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.

Or perhaps you prefer Popper:

Science does not rest on solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (New York, Routledge Classics, 1959, reprint of first English edition, 2002), 94.

Comments

The scientific position regarding UCA is settled because of two things: a) a lot of evidence supports it; b)there is no other scientific explanation for certain characteristics of living organisms on Earth.
Pure nonsense.Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

That is true if design is a separete thing from designer and designer.
It is. We can determine design exists without knowing the designer. We can also detect design without knowing the process used.
If there is something designed, the there was a process of designing and something that acted as designer. Since science answers questions, once you get to a point when new questions arise you search for new answers.
Exactly and that is why ID is not a scientific dead end. ID doesn't answer those questions and it doesn't prevent anyone from trying to do so. As a matter of fact reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any determination about the designer or the process used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!!
Well if that is good enough for you then saying a non-human designed life on earth should be good enough too.
There’s nothing in the universe that we know for sure it was designed and we don’t know anything of the designer.
We can tell things about the designer from the design. If we knew who designed life and the universe then we wouldn't need science to help us with a design inference. It's as if you know absolutely nothing about how science works.
Besides, again “certain features of the universe and of life ar best explained by means of an intelligent cause”. What’s the explanation?
The explanation is those features are intelligently designed and need to be investigated accordingly in order to be properly understood. As Dawkins said it changes everything with respect to biology.Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

HeKS I want to mention, also, that yes MN is a limitation in science. But it's a limitation that prevents science from confusing myths with reality. If you know any other methodology that is not restricted to naturalism but is STRONG in rejeting myths, it will be welcome. Also, bear in mind that ID is said to be science.Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Guillermo, God Design reflected in Nature is by definition unknowable. Evolution in Nature is knowable. So, how did Evolution do the Design? And don't give me that "appearance of design" crud.ppolish_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

@Barry #113
Richard Dawkins agrees: My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories
Yes. Exactly! That's what Methodological Naturalism logically entails.HeKS_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

HeKS The scientific position regarding UCA is settled because of two things: a) a lot of evidence supports it; b)there is no other scientific explanation for certain characteristics of living organisms on Earth. That it's settled does not mean that it's a definitive truth, but that the scientific community considers it so valid that there is no need to test it any further. Of course, it can be wrong. The first step to prove it wrong is explaining another mechanism that could have produced biodiversity as we see it in our world.Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Joe: "Both the designer and the specific processes used are separate questions from whether or not there is an intelligent design" That is true if design is a separete thing from designer and designer. But it is not. If there is something designed, the there was a process of designing and something that acted as designer. Since science answers questions, once you get to a point when new questions arise you search for new answers. We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!! There's nothing in the universe that we know for sure it was designed and we don't know anything of the designer. Try to find an example. There isn't. Besides, again "certain features of the universe and of life ar best explained by means of an intelligent cause". What's the explanation? "I don't know what" did it "I don't know how", but "I don't know what" is intelligent for sure?Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

ppolish: It was not me who claim to have that explanation. ID is said to be a scientific discipline and those who study it always claim that evolutonists cannot explain how certain things took place. The obvious conclusion is that ID can explain it. By the way, what is exactly god?Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

HeKS:
MN makes it logically necessary that the singularly viable naturalistic theory (or one of the theories in the limited set) is correct for scientific purposes, no matter how low the prior probability might be. . . But if naturalism is assumed to be true, Universal Common Descent, or something very close to it, is necessarily true regardless of how it fares when compared to the evidence;
Richard Dawkins agrees:
My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories
Barry Arrington_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

@wd400 #78
HeKs, I really don’t know why you struggle with this so, and makes things so much more complex than they need be.
I'm not the one who is struggling with it, and I'm beginning to think less charitably of your dodging of the issues.
It’s quite possible for the best scientific explanation to be poor, in which case p(theory|naturalism) and p(theory|not-naturalism) would both be low, and so p(theory) would be low.
You are completely ignoring the problem. On Methodological Naturalism, if there is only one logically possible naturalistic theory to explain some phenomenon, it doesn't matter how low the prior probability of the theory would be, because naturalism is assumed to be correct, and so the correctness of the theory will be determined to have a probability of 1 as a matter of pure logical necessity.
I also don’t see why a theory would work only under naturalism.
Umm, because it defines itself in purely naturalistic terms to the exclusion of any role for mind. It's not necessarily that the theory couldn't work if naturalism is ultimately false. It's that the theory necessarily says naturalism is sufficient even if naturalism is not broadly true. If the philosophical principle underlying science is that naturalism is sufficient to explain anything and everything and that no non-naturalistic causes could ever be necessary to explain anything because their non-existence is assumed as part of the core methodology of science, then any time we find a singularly logically viable naturalistic theory (i.e. a theory that leaves no role for teleology or mind) to explain any phenomenon, or even some limited set of theories, MN makes it logically necessary that the singularly viable naturalistic theory (or one of the theories in the limited set) is correct for scientific purposes, no matter how low the prior probability might be.
The science of, to take your example, of universal common descent is settled. Many religous people accept this without a problem.
It doesn't matter whether many religious people accept it. What matters is whether it truly explains the evidence well when one is not committed to interpreting the evidence through the lens of a particular philosophical presupposition. Universal Common Descent is convincing on naturalism for the simple reason that if naturalism is true, anything other than Universal Common Descent seems virtually impossible to believe. So, no matter how low the prior probability of Universal Common Descent may be on naturalism, anything else would require events that are orders of magnitude more unlikely, if not impossible, on naturalism, and they would simply involve common descent from multiple naturalistic origins of life. But if naturalism is assumed to be true, Universal Common Descent, or something very close to it, is necessarily true regardless of how it fares when compared to the evidence; as are any claims that the mechanism of descent with modification is purely naturalistic, even if we don't know what naturalistic mechanism might be capable of effecting viable and stable changes at the level of the bodyplan. Think about that for a second. People say that when it comes to Universal Common Descent, 'the science is settled' (i.e. 'Science says it's true') even though we don't know how it could actually happen. Not only are we ignorant of how it could happen, in fact, but there are plenty of reasons to think it didn't happen and couldn't happen. At least not naturalistically. And yet, 'the science is settled', so rational people are supposed to simply accept the historical narrative of Evolutionary theory and overlook its incessant appeals to just-so stories. In reality, to say that 'the science is settled' on Universal Common Descent is simply to say that, given the artificially imposed philosophical constraints on science, Universal Common Descent has been shown to be the most likely naturalistic explanation by such a large margin that that it can be believed with certainty to be the only naturalistic explanation that makes any sense, even if we don't know of a naturalistic mechanism that can generate viable and stable heritable changes at the level of the bodyplan. I don't think there's any statement in that description that even I could disagree with. And yet, I believe that Universal Common Descent is a very poor fit with the evidence when it is viewed as a whole; especially in light of the lack of any viable naturalistic mechanism to allow it to happen. But if naturalism is true, Universal Common Descent, or something very much like it, must be true, regardless of how improbable it is on naturalism. And that's the big problem with Methodological Naturalism: If we observe some effect where the only viable naturalistic theory to explain it is incredibly improbable, that should call the naturalism into serious doubt. However, on MN, we must instead say that the naturalism is known to be true from the outset, and so the only viable naturalistic theory must be correct no matter how improbable. Finally, in a response to KF, you said:
I care about whether methodological naturalism requires philosophical naturalism, and am yet to see any argument as to why it does…
This just doesn't make any sense. Methodological Naturalism just is applied philosophical naturalism. It says, "Assume Philosophical Naturalism when you do science, even if you don't think Philosophical Naturalism is generally true." The resulting decrees of 'science' will therefore necessarily be determined by philosophical naturalism even when they come from people who don't think philosophical naturalism is generally true. Methodological Naturalism puts an investigative and intellectual block on scientists. And contrary to your claims, its not so much that MN prevents scientists from considering supernatural explanations as it is that it prevents them from considering artificial or teleological explanations. Note, however, that MN is ignored in archaeology, forensics, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, and most other scientific disciplines. Where it is enforced is primarily in Biology, Astronomy and Cosmology. This is not because the methods of design detection employed in other areas of science suddenly become invalid in these fields. Rather, it is because if design detection is permitted in these fields it would have secondary philosophical implications that make many people, particularly committed materialists, very uncomfortable. Consider, for a moment, if the methods of design detection that are routinely employed in other areas of science were acknowledged as being genuinely scientific in the field of cosmology, so that now artificial and teleological explanations were allowed in addition to explanation that appeal simply to chance, law or some combination of the two. If that happened, even a number of committed atheist cosmologists would be forced to admit that design was currently the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. But then one would be forced to conclude that that the entire material universe came into existence as the product of design by an agent that existed prior to the origin of matter and space-time. This would seriously call into question the validity of the PR claims of establishment science, which assert that science gives us a way to know the truth about reality where religion only gives us outdated myths. It would be very much like a comment made by Robert Jastrow:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
If you think that this dynamic is not a significant consideration in the way the debate has unfolded, you're not being realistic.HeKS_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

wd400:
To providing a testable hypothesis that “mind interacted with matter” to make biology.
That is a separate question from what ID is.Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

I forgot when. We can try to discover what/where/why/when God Designed. But not How.ppolish_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Guillermoe:
Do you wnat me to explain what intelligent design has to do with designing?
OK so you have absolutely no clue as to what ID is. Why don't you just say so? Both the designer and the specific processes used are separate questions from whether or not there is an intelligent design. We don't know who designed Stonehenge nor how it was built, yet we are sure that it was intelligently designed.Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

HOW did God design, Guillermo? First you ask what and now you ask how. HOW God Designed is above sapien's pay grade. We can try to discover what/where/why, but HOW is off the table. Way way off.ppolish_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

K I read the Weak Argument Correctives section. Left some comments there. The article is about science not proving things but giving "approximate answers". ID is said to be science. So it provides approximate answers. I wolud really like to know hat those answers are. ID states that the best explanation for ceartain features of life and the universe would be an intelligent cause. I guess the approximate answer wolud be that explanation. I want to know what that explanation is. What is the intelligent cause and how it produced those "certain features of the universe". I think this leads to a chance of showing how science produces "approxsimate answers" taking those answers from ID. I don't really care about the "inference of design". Living organisms are what they are. The question is not if it is appropriate to call them "designed" (which is correct if you choose an adequate definition of design) but HOW they came to be?Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

RB, I have given in outline, facts, observations, reasoning, geometry. Thus, I claim warrant for holding that the shadows of Earth on the moon during lunar eclipses are an observation that on the logical force of geometry as a deductive system, are immediarely decisive that we have observed a round earth, as has been known since Aristotle. You have so far presented dismissive language by trying to suggest that geometry provides a "model" rather than a logic that implies the conclusion on the observation given that on the relevant scale light is acting as rays that trace straight lines across space -- much as for today's laser levels. The balance on the merits speaks for itself. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

WD, the evidence is there for all to see and I rest on the strength of it. That evidence says, worldview level ideological imposition and question-begging. Let me call up another witness on what is going on. Mr Martin Mahner of the Center for Inquiry-Europe, says much the same in his recent Science and Education article, "The role of Metaphysical Naturalism in Science" [[2011]:
This paper defends the view that metaphysical naturalism is a constitutive ontological principle of science in that the general empirical methods of science, such as observation, measurement and experiment, and thus the very production of empirical evidence, presuppose a no-supernature principle . . . . Metaphysical or ontological naturalism (henceforth: ON) [["roughly" and "simply"] is the view that all that exists is our lawful spatiotemporal world. Its negation is of course supernaturalism: the view that our lawful spatiotemporal world is not all that exists because there is another non-spatiotemporal world transcending the natural one, whose inhabitants—usually considered to be intentional beings—are not subject to natural laws . . . . ON is not part of a deductive argument in the sense that if we collected all the statements or theories of science and used them as premises, then ON would logically follow. After all, scientific theories do not explicitly talk about anything metaphysical such as the presence or absence of supernatural entities: they simply refer to natural entities and processes only. Therefore, ON rather is a tacit metaphysical supposition of science, an ontological postulate. It is part of a metascientific framework or, if preferred, of the metaparadigm of science that guides the construction and evaluation of theories, and that helps to explain why science works and succeeds in studying and explaining the world. Now this can be interpreted in a weak and a strong sense. In the weak sense, ON is only part of the metaphysical background assumptions of contemporary science as a result of historical contingency; so much so that we could replace ON by its antithesis any time, and science would still work fine. This is the view of the creationists, and, curiously, even of some philosophers of science (e.g., Monton 2009). In the strong sense, ON is essential to science; that is, if it were removed from the metaphysics of science, what we would get would no longer be a science. Conversely, inasmuch as early science accepted supernatural entities as explainers, it was not proper science yet. It is of course this strong sense that I have in mind when I say that science presupposes ON.
The degree to which this article ties the course of reasoning to a strawman contrast, natural vs supernatural, is inadvertently utterly revealing. As already noted, from the days of Plato on, the true contrast posed by design oriented thinkers -- as opposed to Creationists appealing to a tradition that is viewed as rooted in Divine Revelation -- has been that we may contrast blind chance and mechanical necessity ["nature"] vs the ART-ificial, and that both may leave empirically observable characteristic traces. On an inference to best explanation basis, science may identify such. As opposed to "prove" such. The cosnistent strawman contrast is a telling clue, and it speaks to an agenda, of a priori metaphysical evolutionary materialism perceived as the premise of being "Scientific." Exactly as Johnson pointed out in rebutting Lewontin. And of course though tangential, this points back tot he problem at the head of this thread, as a close traveling companion of this materialistic a priorism is scientism, the notion that science defines knowledge or at least covers knowledge worth having and really reliable. Such a view, being in itself inherently an epistemological claim, even when said while wearing a lab coat, is inescapably a philosophical one and self-refutes. But to those enmeshed int eh scheme, to "prove" is to ground "scientifically," with Mathematics somehow being enfolded as part of science. But a clearer-eyed understanding of what warrant and proof entail, will immediately show tha there is much more to the world of reason, logic and proof or knowledge than what scientism would admit. Where in particular, there are many observational claims that are empirically certain and deserve to be called facts, but the scientific explanatory frameworks that we term theories, are not like that. At best they are best explanations to date, may be actually true, or largely true, but they strictly are provisional and are trusted to be empirically reliable and powerful rather than strictly true. And, no, the circularity of the earth as manifested in observing round shadows on the Moon in a lunar eclipse is in the observations category not the explanatory frameworks one. A theory would be more along the lines of explaining how we got a cicumstellar habitable zone terrestrial planet of about 8,000 mi diameter, with so much water and a thick oxygen rich atmosphere, guarded by a large moon. That is ti round and terrestrial is one thing, how it got so in the unobserved deep past of origins, in light of reasonably available materials and forces acting in space and time, is another. KF KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

KF:
Assertions to the contrary do not undo the force of what has already been said.
A gate that swings two ways, KF.Reciprocating Bill_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Well, KF, all I can say is a tried very hard to take you seriously.wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

WD: By imposing naturalism -- a worldview -- that may be descriptively termed evolutionary materialism, the so called methodological constraint smuggle in not merely bias but censorship, not only in science but in science education. As we have seen in declarations, proposals, court actions and even governmental actions. The emperor has no clothes but insists that he parade of shame and folly must go on. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

G: First, I note this is increasingly tangential to the purpose of this thread, and that you would do well to read the Weak Argument Correctives under the resources tab at the top of this and every UD page; but I will note for record. If you are trying to target the reasoning behind the design inference, kindly note the explanation here in the very first ID foundations series post at UD. I think you will on reflection appreciate that whodunit, howtwerdun and thattweredun are three distinct questions. The design inference is an inductive exercise that on a database of trillions of cases in point, infers that certain signs such as functionally specific complex information and associated information, FSCO/I, are empirically reliable signs of design. That is a that twerdun. As to how, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but on the world of life a sufficient cause would be a molecular nanotech lab several tech generations beyond Venter et al. I am confident that across this century and in part on reverse engineering cell based life, we will synthesise artificial life forms in such labs, so much so that one concern is to ethically control genetic engineering from utterly destructive ends such as inventing a little beastie that kills the Krebs cycle, which could sterilise our planet. You may also wish to look at the Russian originated science, TRIZ on inventive problem solving and technologically driven evolution. On whodunit, the empirical evidence from the world of life -- as design thinkers have openly stated from the outset of modern design theory in 1984 in Thaxton et al in TMLO -- i.e. this is yet another insisted upon strawman tactic -- that the evidence in hand from the world of life on earth does not allow us to on that alone identify a specific "suspect" much less identify whether the designer would be within or beyond the observed cosmos. That the observed cosmos exhibits deep, multi-dimensional fine tuning that sets up the world of life based on c-chemistry aqueous medium metabolising, code and algorithm using nanotech cells, that points to a cosmos-building intelligence intending a possibility of such life. But the scientific impact is long before we get there: reverse engineering the design of the world of life. And, perhaps the cosmos too. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Guillermoe, "what happened?"? Considering the latest evidence, Genesis gives an Awesome Explanation and is sapien understandable to boot: Cosmologist Dr Ross, Bizarro World Tyson:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY&feature=youtube_gdata_playerppolish_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Joe: Do you wnat me to explain what intelligent design has to do with designing? Really?Guillermoe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

To providing a testable hypothesis that "mind interacted with matter" to make biology.wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Nothing in ID gets close to what?Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

There's no reason it couldn't. Nothing in ID get's close to it.wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

wd400: Let's set aside your dismissive (and faulty) understanding of ID for a moment. The specific question is: can methodological naturalism (in your understanding in the way you are using it) ever draw a conclusion that an intelligent agent acted in nature? Take your pick of examples: archaeology, SETI, forensics, etc. Does your methodological naturalism allow a scientist to infer that an artifact found in the real world may have been caused by purposeful intelligent action, as opposed to purely natural causes like chance and necessity?Eric Anderson_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

wd400:
For the most part the things ID peole talk about are really secondary to science, and amount to arguing naturalistic theories are insuficent to explain biology.
That is only part of it and as it turns out it is a part that is mandated by science. The other part is the positive case for intelligent design, ie the criteria proposed by Behe and Dembski. ID makes testable claims, it can be falsified and that is what makes it science.Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Guillermoe:
All I have to say about this, given that is blog is about ID is: explain what is the designer and how it does it.
Explain what that has to do with ID and I will give you an answer.Joe_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

EA, My own position is the "methodological naturalism" is only a special case of the general rule that scientific theories have to make demands on the natural world. If it was possible to make a real testable hypothesis from a specific theory that involved "mind interacting with nature" then that'd be fine. I've never seen anything like that in ID, though. For the most part the things ID peole talk about are really secondary to science, and amount to arguing naturalistic theories are insuficent to explain biology. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not science.wd400_{October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply