Why Aren’t Theistic Evolutionists Called Evolutionary Creationists?

_{Gil Dodgen

April 29, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

I’m just wondering. ID proponents have been called creationists in cheap tuxedos. Intelligent design theory has been called “intelligent design creationism.” It seems to me that to be consistent, theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins should be called — with an obviously pejorative intent — evolutionary creationists, or perhaps creationists in expensive tuxedos.

Is there a double standard here, or am I missing something?

Comments

'To choose either one is, IMO, a position of faith. But chemistry strongly suggests that life is extremely unlikely to form spontaneously, and I’m not convinced that simple life can evolve into complex life without guidance. At best, the evidence is that it happened, not how it happened.' - Gage The atheist's credo, Gage, is surely that of 'infinite serendipity'. A child could see that, indeed, could see no way round it : in very principle, an infinite concatenation of coincidences, with no end to the scope, complexity or subtlety of the non-designs they produce ... which, however, look disconcertingly as if they had been designed. All there is, in all its majestic ineffability. It's just happened that way... and continues in like fashion. Aren't we lucky ? Who needs your steenkin' Intelligent Design and 'fine-tuning'!Axel_{July 12, 2016
July
07
Jul
12
12
2016
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Alastair, But more to the point, traditional or classical theism holds that God is actively engage NOW (not in some distant past only) in an ongoing act of creation. Alright. I agree with that.nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

nullasalus: "If by that you mean ‘if all things were determined by/made to exist as a result of something that was ultimately physical’, I could see your point. Is that what you mean?" Yes, that is partially my point. The materialist believes that everything is physically determined. This is antithetical to any non-material worldview. But more to the point, traditional or classical theism holds that God is actively engage NOW (not in some distant past only) in an ongoing act of creation.
"Creation of the material world by God is an ongoing process - not just a one-shot affair in the beginning that leaves the system to evolve by itself with all its needed active potentialities for the whole process already contained immanently within it. Rather, God is constantly working creatively with the ongoing unfolding of the world's own built-in active potentialities." (source: pg. 256,"The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics" by W. Norris Clarke, S.J.)
Alastair F. Paisley_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Alastair, If by that you mean 'if all things were determined by/made to exist as a result of something that was ultimately physical', I could see your point. Is that what you mean?nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

nullasalus: "Regarding the first way from Aquinas, I never encountered that claim about it." The "first cause" ("uncaused cause") implies physical indeterminism. Of course, if everything were physically determined, then the "first cause" argument would not follow.
Remember that, for purposes of proving God's existence, Aquinas doesn't care about the Big Bang or whether the universe had a beginning. The question isn't about what got things started or how long they've been going, but rather what keeps them going." pg. 103 "Hence, everything in the universe, and indeed the univeres as a whole, must be sustained in being here and now by a cause outside it, a First Cause which upholds the entire series." pg. 108 (source: "The Last Superstition" by Edward Feser)
Alastair F. Paisley_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Jimpithecus: "Then, yes. I accept it." Okay. But do you believe there is any conflict between “theistic evolution” and the “neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?”Alastair F. Paisley_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Alistair wrote: "Neo-Darwinism is the ‘modern synthesis’ of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics" Then, yes. I accept it.Jimpithecus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Regarding the first way from Aquinas, I never encountered that claim about it.nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Gregory, Maybe so, where you live. That is not such a concern for me here. If they show the good science IDers say is available with the ‘design revolution’, the misrepresentation will be much harder to perpetrate. This doesn't work. A lot of the criticisms ID proponents typically offer are valid now, and have been valid for a long time. A lot of the fundamental observations ID offers ('Intelligent agents are capable of designing CSI' + more) are just as valid. Some of the problems can be blamed on ID proponents. Others can't. Be welcome to contact me at your convenience and I’d be glad to correspond with you privately by e-mail or we could arrange to speak. Gladly, I'll do so soon.nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

"No, but plenty – and I mean plenty – of people who criticize ID mangle the claims, unintentionally or not. Very few people who criticize ID can actually do so while giving it anything close to a charitable representation." - nullasalus Maybe so, where you live. That is not such a concern for me here. If they show the good science IDers say is available with the 'design revolution', the misrepresentation will be much harder to perpetrate. 'Give us time' only goes so far (5, 10, 20+ years). "I’d love to discuss things rationally. No need for a thread – if you like, I can just contact you by email and we can go over things privately." - nullasalus Sure, o.k. Barry has my e-mail address, so I'm now giving him permission to pass it on to you. Be welcome to contact me at your convenience and I'd be glad to correspond with you privately by e-mail or we could arrange to speak.Gregory_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, Doesn't Aquinas' "first cause" argument imply physical indeterminism?Alastair F. Paisley_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Jimpithecus,
Neo-Darwinism is the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics (source: Wikipedia: Neo-Darwinisim)
Alastair F. Paisley_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Alistair, how do you define: “neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?” "Would you like that theory with or without the metaphysics, Sir?"
Jon Garvey_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Alistair, how do you define: "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?"Jimpithecus_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Gregory, The last part of the above sentence is confusing, since it could sound like those ID proponents (of whom you are admittedly not one) might not understand their own claims. No, but plenty - and I mean plenty - of people who criticize ID mangle the claims, unintentionally or not. Very few people who criticize ID can actually do so while giving it anything close to a charitable representation. Downplaying the importance of philosophy is typical of western, analytic societies, I do no such thing. In fact I stress that philosophy and metaphysics are not only important and ultimately inescapable, but that the scope of 'science' is far more limited than most appreciate. That's one reason I'm reluctant to call ID science. I've defended thomists on this site, along with their decision (such as Ed Feser's) to not back ID, or regard their views as part of ID. As nullasalus has posting privileges here at UD (while I don’t), I’d request a thread just for the two of us, to discuss things in a civil and courteous manner (I’ll be on my best behaviour, null). I'd love to discuss things rationally. No need for a thread - if you like, I can just contact you by email and we can go over things privately.nullasalus_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

nullasalus wrote: "even if I disagree with ID proponents over whether or not ID is science, I happen to think ID proponents should be allowed to speak for themselves, and to understand just what claims they are making." ID proponents are allowed to speak for themselves, especially at internet sites like UD, Evolution News and Views, ID and Evolution Awareness Centre, ID the Future, Intelligentdesign.org, ARN, Telic Thoughts, etc. (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php) The last part of the above sentence is confusing, since it could sound like those ID proponents (of whom you are admittedly not one) might not understand their own claims. "the utter extent of philosophy’s role in ID has to do with, at most, philosophy of science considerations." Actually, I'd include philosophy of knowledge, aesthetics and ethics as well, among others, though we are agreed that philosophy of science is most important, given the IDM's insistence that ID is 'scientific'. If nature is 'divine technology' (Fuller 2007) and our job as human beings is to 'complete nature' by understanding nature's 'design' and controlling it, then there are serious, big-time ethical issues involved, which I doubt many IDers have yet considered. They want the Darwin (pun lookout) 'monkey off their back,' so as to renew society in a post-naturalistic way. The connections between 'design' and 'aesthetics' should be obvious, which explains why ARN has an IDArts.org page. Downplaying the importance of philosophy is typical of western, analytic societies, who have priviledged science and birthed the ideology of scientism. I would recommend you allow Aquinas his important place at the table, nullasalus, for whatever kind of discussion you think you're having. Philosophy is more important than you seem to credit and it is also a place where the IDM is imo head and shoulders above TE/EC folks at BioLogos, who haven't a philosopher in their ranks. With regard to my supposed "damn obsession with social sciences" and nullasalus suggesting I "look a little crazy," well, his comments seem to be to have become simply rude and unhospitable. I don't wish to stoop to such a level, which is not my purpose in coming here. But I put thought to and meditated on what to do and a possible solution came to me. As nullasalus has posting privileges here at UD (while I don't), I'd request a thread just for the two of us, to discuss things in a civil and courteous manner (I'll be on my best behaviour, null). We could arrange a (question and answer or statement) format acceptable to both and proceed to engage some of the misunderstandings between us, without other commenters involved. Call it 'leveling the playing field,' if you like. Who knows, perhaps we might find many things to agree upon, as nullasalus recently suggested. How does it sound?Gregory_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Does anyone here believe there is a conflict between "theistic evolution" and "neo-Darwinian evolution?" Why or why not?Alastair F. Paisley_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Why do those at Biologos hang onto Christianity? I only have one compartment in my head.Mytheos_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

I'd like to come back to what Jimpithecus wrote and appreciate that he, as a Phd level biological anthropologist, is visiting Uncommon Descent - maybe this will translate into more UD people visiting BioLogos also. "I have trouble with 'evolutionism,' which removes God from the equation..." - Jimpithecus Is this not a concession UD people can embrace? Indeed, if BioLogos would do more to write against the ideology of evolutionism, I would value their position more on the philosophical dimension. Our problem here, is the continual exaggeration of positions from science into ideology, or from worldview into science; creation into creationism, evolution into evolutionism and design into 'science-only'. For example, the language of an 'evolutionary creation' is not problematic, it is acceptable for the majority of Abrahamic monotheists who believe in Creation and also accept 'evolutionary theory' as the best available 'paradigm' for investigating and discussing processes of change-over-time in natural history. ECs are trying to 'follow the evidence where it leads,' and they are doing it while keeping their religion 'on their sleeve.' A 'naturalist' (the occupation) can thus safely study natural history and remain (openly and unabashedly) a 'theist,' as long as he or she doesn't embrace the ideology of naturalism or the ideology of evolutionism. The danger of scientism, turning science into ideology, seems to lurk at every step and turn for 'practising' natural scientists. Thus, I appreciate Jimpithecus' words against 'evolutionism,' which is part of the term 'theistic evolutionism.' My problem is with and challenge is to the ideological phrase 'theistic evolution-ism,' rather than the idea that a theist can accept a (limited) view of evolution as a (biological or natural scientific) theory of change in natural history. I reject turning evolution into a 'grand unified theory,' extending from cosmology to biology to culture? Would Jimpithecus (and even nullasalus) and others agree on this here? "I wish the term 'evolutionary creationism' was promoted more, because it would tend to rehabilitate the word 'creation' from its modern, politically restricted useage..." - Jon Likewise, I see no problem at all in speaking about 'creation' (and also 'creativity'), but much room for error and heterodoxy in the ideology of 'creationism.' BioLogos is more directly opposed to 'creationism' in the 'young earth creationism' (YEC) variety than is ID (which seems not to care what age one thinks the Earth is). This is an important contribution to USAmerican culture, imhfo (f = foreigner), given the vast numbers of evangelical Christians there who have been deluded by the ideology of 'creationism.' This can be attributed at least in part to the highly literalistic culture and to the lack of philosophy of science taught in USAmerican schools. But, if I understand Jon's U.K.-oriented motivation and support for EC, it is that 'creation' deserves to be included in school curricula, though not as an ideology. Would it make sense then to include more discussion of creation/Creation, as distinct from the ideology of evolutionism and as distinct from young earth creationism, which promote a convoluted mess called 'creation science'? How could such a mission be accomplished in 'western' societies which highly value 'separation of religion and state'? We are obviously, neither at BioLogos nor at UD, promoting 'theocracy'! Intelligent design/Design (theory) does not have to face the age of the earth, does not have to 'become' a theological (i.e. not just a 'scientific') perspective, does not have to speak of the Creator of Creation. But it should be very careful that it does not, as Jimpithecus warns, "remove God from the equation." On this question, so far, BioLogos 'science & faith' position is more holistic than ID's persistence to be 'just science' so as to oppose in particular the neo-Darwinian synthesis in evolutionary biology. This is another reason, Gil, that BioLogos is not ridiculed or 'cheap tuxedoed' while ID is. Why aren't TEs called ECs is an important topic for science, philosophy, ideology, religion discourse and I'm glad Gil has raised the question and that Jimpithecus and others who participate at BioLogos are engaging the topic here.Gregory_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Hi Gil, You wrote: "A major theme of my post seems to have been overlooked, and that is that theistic evolutionists appear to have been at least somewhat immune to the condescension and vitriol..." I thought that was looked at directly here: "Because BioLogos accepts (most if not all of) ‘evolutionary biology,’ even if it is not clear ‘how Darwinistic’ they are, the scientific community treats them with more respect than ‘creationists’." "I guarantee that Francis Collins would never have been appointed to the position of director of the National Institutes of Health had he been an ID proponent." Totally agreed. "My conclusion is that he was given a pass, based upon the notion that his essential thesis (as far as I can tell) is that God can plan, purpose and design — without a plan, or a purpose, and with no design." Don't forget, Collins fully accepts small id, the idea that God did design, but does not accept Big ID, the notion that we can 'scientifically' detect that design. "superbly engineered technology found in the simplest cell" It seems you've bought into the idea that 'organisms are machines,' rather than simply organisms. This is an example of mecha-morphic thinking. Now the computer you are reading this message on, surely was designed...and built. To Dembski, that is mundane and uninteresting; but imo that's where the real action is. There would be no need to refer to oneself as a TEist an ECist or an IDer if one's work was designing and building computers, bridges or airplanes; only in one's non-technical life with family, friends and peers who might wish to discuss origins and processes of change over time in natural, non-natural and/or supernatural history (the second and third which of course some people deny) do these labels come into play.Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

A major theme of my post seems to have been overlooked, and that is that theistic evolutionists appear to have been at least somewhat immune to the condescension and vitriol directed at ID proponents by Darwinian fundamentalists. This includes the "creationist" label and tuxedo references. I guarantee that Francis Collins would never have been appointed to the position of director of the National Institutes of Health had he been an ID proponent. My conclusion is that he was given a pass, based upon the notion that his essential thesis (as far as I can tell) is that God can plan, purpose and design -- without a plan, or a purpose, and with no design. Go figure. As a final note: The obviously, superbly engineered technology found in the simplest cell should strike anyone with any rationality and experience in engineering and information processing as slam-dunk, undeniable evidence of intelligent design, through whatever source and by whatever means. Denying the implications of this evidence is essentially equivalent to denying reality.GilDodgen_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Is nullasalus actually suggesting that ‘cosmology’ is not ‘scientific,’ not a ‘science’? His view of ‘science’ is rather small, it seems. Yeah, Gregory. You may want to check what the cosmological arguments are. No, they're not science. These are philosophical arguments. This is utterly non-controversial. Thus, nullasalus is promoting ID ‘apologetics’ or ID ‘philosophy’ or ID ‘theology’ if not ID ‘science’? Or just anti-misrepresentation of a ‘big tent’ that can be represented in many possible ways? I love how you address this to onlookers, rather than just asking me. Here's what I think: even if I disagree with ID proponents over whether or not ID is science, I happen to think ID proponents should be allowed to speak for themselves, and to understand just what claims they are making. And they manifestly are not arguing that the cosmological argument is ID. nullasalus protests that “philosophical and metaphysical arguments aren’t part of ID.” Who’s telling the joke here, please, really? Just check out the number of philosophers and theologians employed by the DI to betray this claim. I'll start caring about this the moment ID proponents argue that the cosmological arguments, or Aquinas' Five Ways, etc, are science, not philosophy. Until that point, the utter extent of philosophy's role in ID has to do with, at most, philosophy of science considerations. They do not try to pass off Aquinas' Five Ways (for example) as ID - because by their own definitions, it's not. And since we're playing to the crowd here: Gregory's acting up because I've told him and his damn obsession with the social sciences off, so now he's nicely kicked into "fight nullasalus on every subject, in every way" mode. Unfortunately for him, when he rolls in confusing the cosmological argument for God's existence with cosmology, it makes him look a little crazy.nullasalus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

"A cosmological argument for God is not ID – it’s expressly outside the bounds of science." - nullasalus Is nullasalus actually suggesting that 'cosmology' is not 'scientific,' not a 'science'? His view of 'science' is rather small, it seems. He is obviously in serious contradiction. He says he does not think that ID is 'scientific.' Here we agree. Yet, in the same breath, says "ID’s evidence and inferences are what they are, and stand or fall on their own terms." What does this mean, layman, on what basis then? Thus, nullasalus is promoting ID 'apologetics' or ID 'philosophy' or ID 'theology' if not ID 'science'? Or just anti-misrepresentation of a 'big tent' that can be represented in many possible ways? When nullasalus encounters people like him (the considerably few Catholics who are statistically pro-ID), who reject the idea that 'ID-is-science' *and* who are competent in philosophy of science, which he does not appear to be, then there's trouble on the horizon. Why? Because it is very difficult to teach a 'theistic evolutionist' who is already convinced in their creed to think otherwise, let alone by short blog posts. nullasalus protests that "philosophical and metaphysical arguments aren’t part of ID." Who's telling the joke here, please, really? Just check out the number of philosophers and theologians employed by the DI to betray this claim. Ever wondered what Dembski's "The Bridge" (1999) title is all about?Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Which means that charging that ID “can’t be theologically neutral unless one forfeits cosmological arguments” just is going nowhere as a claim, because philosophical and metaphysical arguments aren’t part of ID anyway. Whether I.D. is theologically neutral, and whether neutrality causes tension with other beliefs, *are* philosophical claims. If you’re saying that ID is not theologically neutral if you accept the cosmological arguments, you’re just flat out incorrect. I am saying that, and my article is an argument for that. Good job declaring me wrong by fiat.Metalogic42_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

I never claimed to be doing science. My argument is a philosophical one, about a philosophical issue. I…don’t understand why there’s so many misconceptions here about what I’ve said. I didn't say you were doing science. I said that someone who was employing cosmological arguments or including such stances in their reasoning was not doing science. Which means that charging that ID "can't be theologically neutral unless one forfeits cosmological arguments" just is going nowhere as a claim, because philosophical and metaphysical arguments aren't part of ID anyway. If all you're claiming is "if you accept the cosmological arguments for God, then you're going to ultimately conclude that that which is designed ultimately terminates in God", well, great. Isn't that tautological? If you're saying that ID is not theologically neutral if you accept the cosmological arguments, you're just flat out incorrect.nullasalus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

And ID doesn’t get into discussions of essentially ordered series. No, but philosophy of science does. The moment you include philosophical arguments in your reasoning, you’re no longer doing ID as science – you’re now introducing metaphysics and philosophy, and the result is a non-scientific beast. Rather like how, if you say that evolution is unguided, purposeless, etc, you’ve given up science – you’re off in religion/metaphysics/philosophy-land. I never claimed to be doing science. My argument is a philosophical one, about a philosophical issue. I...don't understand why there's so many misconceptions here about what I've said.Metalogic42_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

The regress isn’t necessarily temporal, it’s about causation. So this doesn’t seem relevant. And ID doesn't get into discussions of essentially ordered series. That’s true, but I’m arguing only that there’s tension between nontheistic I.D. and cosmological arguments, such that I.D. can’t be theologically neutral unless one forfeits cosmological arguments. But this is just silly, like saying that cosmology can't be theologically neutral if one accepts a given cosmological proof of God or God's non-existence. ID's evidence and inferences are what they are, and stand or fall on their own terms. The moment you include philosophical arguments in your reasoning, you're no longer doing ID as science - you're now introducing metaphysics and philosophy, and the result is a non-scientific beast. Rather like how, if you say that evolution is unguided, purposeless, etc, you've given up science - you're off in religion/metaphysics/philosophy-land.nullasalus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

First, no – not all of them do. Some cosmological works fine with an eternal universe. The regress isn't necessarily temporal, it's about causation. So this doesn't seem relevant. cosmological arguments for God are philosophical arguments. ID proponents don’t claim ID is philosophy, but that it’s science. A cosmological argument for God is not ID – it’s expressly outside the bounds of science. Fine, assume that ID is science when examining my argument, which is about philosophy of science. I'm commenting about how I.D is applied, not about I.D. itself. ID’s claim is not that “ID is nontheistic”. At best, it’s that it’s theologically neutral in that ID can get as far as “a designer”, and that’s it. "Nontheistic" just is "theologically neutral"(contrast nontheistic with atheistic). If you like, consider my argument to be talking about "agnostic I.D." Now, someone can accept ID and reject or accept cosmological arguments That's true, but I'm arguing only that there's tension between nontheistic I.D. and cosmological arguments, such that I.D. can't be theologically neutral unless one forfeits cosmological arguments.Metalogic42_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Cosmological arguments for God do – and they further argue that the only acceptable termination is God. Hence the tension between nontheistic I.D. and cosmological arguments. First, no - not all of them do. Some cosmological works fine with an eternal universe. Second - cosmological arguments for God are philosophical arguments. ID proponents don't claim ID is philosophy, but that it's science. A cosmological argument for God is not ID - it's expressly outside the bounds of science. Third - ID's claim is not that "ID is nontheistic". At best, it's that it's theologically neutral in that ID can get as far as "a designer", and that's it. Now, someone can accept ID and reject or accept cosmological arguments - they can be a theist or an atheist. But considering ID's limits, as understood by ID's own proponents, there's just no tension of the sort you're speaking of.nullasalus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Good question, Alastair #13 & #23 to Jimpithecus. Jimpithecus seems to be equivocating and obfuscating. "I dropped the TE term a bit back and forgot I had done so." Yeah, right - forgot! "we are “creationists” in the sense that we believe in God and are committed Christians" - Jimpithecus So, do you agree that you are a 'creationist,' James, in the sense that what you teach is by law not allowed in USAmerican schools? Dressing it up fancy (qualifier) doesn't change the Barbie. Notice the parallel with the MN thread? 'No, your honour, we're not methodological naturalists (progressive creationists), we're not metaphysical naturalists (young earth creationists), we're just naturalists (evolutionists)!'Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply