Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Were So Many Darwin Defenders No-Shows at the World’s Premier Evolutionary Conference?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I have often wondered whether the loudness and aggressiveness of many culture-war defenders of neo-Darwinian evolution bears any relationship at all to the actual scientific contributions of those defenders to the field of evolutionary biology.  As it happens, we have at hand some evidence, albeit of a rough and ready kind, relevant to that question.

From June 17 to June 21, 2011, at the University of Oklahoma (Norman) campus, the conference “Evolution 2011” was in session.  It was co-sponsored by three scientific societies – The Society for the Study of Evolution, The Society of Systematic Biologists, and the American Society of Naturalists.  It was billed by its promoters as “the premier annual international conference of evolutionary biologists on the planet.”

That billing may be somewhat hyperbolic, yet two things are clear:  the conference was huge, with an expected turnout of 1400-1500 people; and many of the big names of evolutionary biology were to be there.  Jerry Coyne was to give an address; H. Allen Orr was to chair a session; and Gunter Wagner and Sergey Gavrilets, cutting-edge biologists from the famed 2008 Altenberg conference, were to be there as well.  Hundreds of papers were scheduled, and the research contributors to the various papers and presentations, according to the index for the conference, numbered something like 2,000.

It is interesting to make a mental list of the Darwin-defenders who have been most active in the culture wars, whether by publishing popular books defending Darwin, by appearing as witnesses against school boards in court cases, by working for the NCSE, by running pro-Darwinian blog sites, or by attacking Darwin critics throughout cyberspace, and to see which of them either read papers or at least contributed to the research and writing of papers for this premier conference.

Let’s start with those Darwin defenders who are actively anti-religious or show contempt for religion in their writings and internet remarks.  Conspicuously absent from the list of conference contributors were evolutionary champions Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, Larry Moran, and Eugenie Scott.

Among those who have not attacked religious belief, but have violently bashed ID and/or passionately upheld neo-Darwinian theory, Paul Gross (co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse) and plant scientist Arthur Hunt (who has debated ID people live and on the internet) were not listed as contributors to any of the papers.

Among those who were active in the Dover ID trial, as witnesses for the plaintiffs, the no-shows include Kevin Padian, Robert Pennock, and Brian Alters.

Among the prominent Christian Darwinists, i.e., theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists, only Ken Miller was going to be there, and not to read a scientific paper, but to issue a cultural manifesto on why evolution matters in America today.  The leading figures of Biologos – Darrel Falk, Dennis Venema, Kathryn Applegate, David Ussery, David Kerk, Denis Lamoureux – who have so often been presented, explicitly or implicitly, as experts on evolutionary biology – produced no papers for this conference.    British scientists Oliver Barclay and Denis Alexander, who have posted several guest columns on Biologos, are not mentioned.  The frequent UD commenter and Quaker TE Allan MacNeill, who has penned hundreds of thousands of words on UD and on his own blogs, apparently couldn’t manage 5,000 or so words for an original research paper for the conference, nor could the belligerent Calvinist TE and almost as prolific anti-ID blogger Steve Matheson.

Now of course statistics of this sort don’t prove anything about the competence or incompetence of any particular individual.  There are all kinds of good reasons why a competent evolutionary theorist might not contribute to a particular evolutionary conference.  Maybe some of these people elected to attend another evolutionary conference later this year, or early next year, or maybe their travel budget was exhausted.  Maybe personal matters prevented them from going.  Maybe some of them attended the conference, to keep up with the field, even though they contributed no paper.  But one wonders why such a large number of rabid pro-Darwinists would be non-contributors at the premier evolution conference in the world, if they are as competent in the field of evolutionary biology as they make out.  Could it be that most of these people, though possessing degrees in the life sciences, are in fact not trained specifically in evolutionary biology, and therefore had no original work to contribute?

I would be interested in hearing from readers about this.  Of the people I’ve named, how many have read a paper at, or at least co-written a technical paper for, any secular conference on evolutionary biology in the past ten years?  Or published a peer-reviewed paper specifically on evolutionary biology  in a secular scientific journal in the past ten years?   Are many of the loudest defenders of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy in fact unqualified to talk at an expert level about the latest theoretical and experimental work in evolutionary biology?  And if so, why do they set themselves up as the world’s teachers when it comes to evolution?  Why do they write so many blogs, post so many comments, put up so many nasty book reviews on Amazon, participate in so many anti-ID debates on the Darwinist side, if they aren’t experts in the field?  Why don’t they let the real experts in evolutionary biology – the Coynes and Orrs and Sean Carrolls – do the public cheerleading and debating for evolutionary biology, and stick quietly to their own specialties of cell biology, genetics, developmental biology, etc.?

In most scientific areas, non-experts don’t pretend to stand in for experts.  You don’t see solid-state physicists rushing onto the blogosphere to defend the latest  view on black holes from Stephen Hawking.  They leave the defense of cosmology to the cosmologists.  But for some reason every medical geneticist, soil scientist, biochemist, developmental biologist, cell biologist, anthropologist, part-time first-year biology instructor, undergrad biology teacher at a Christian college, etc., thinks himself or herself an expert on evolutionary theory, and competent to debate it with anyone, any time.  Normal professional humility goes out the window when defending Darwinian theory is concerned.  That’s why I think it’s important to ask the question:  how many of the self-appointed defenders of Darwinian evolution have demonstrated competence, proved by research and publication, in the field of evolutionary biology?

Comments
"This is less about biology than about just plain clear thinking. Someone who can’t see that this preliminary question (*how many* morphological changes, and *which* morphological changes) needs to be answered before the detailed evolutionary explanations can begin, is not a clear thinker." Bingo. Leaving aside the question of neo-Darwinist evolution, the very word 'design' predicates both intelligence and purpose, so that that the simple prefacing of that word, 'design', with the word, 'intelligent', is effectively tautological. Secularists need to coin a new word, which conveys the clear sense of the word, 'design', but a magical provenance from a seemingly endless chain of random coincidences and involving only inanimate matter. Looks really like it's been designed, but it's a whole nother animal.pbecke
August 27, 2011
August
08
Aug
27
27
2011
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
GUN: This on dogs etc may be interesting, as will this on Cichlid fish. (Note red deer and elk from US -- rated as different species -- are apparently interfertile in New Zealand; and the same has been happening with finches in the Galapagos.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
F/N: on all time [ since was it April] pop and hot posts lists, so not quite dead yet Dr Cudworth. However your points are well made on the main subject and on Dr Matzke's attempted intervention.kairosfocus
July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Dirac, 1928 -- 83 years ago; an expression that implied the existence of antimatter, i.e. a confirmed prediction. Long enough ago that this should be fairly common knowledge.kairosfocus
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
Petrushka: I have nothing to do with moderation. Take it up with whoever is responsible. As for your questions about quantum theory and so on, all five of them are entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I do not find fault with physics or chemistry or mathematics for any of the things you mention. But I would find fault with them if their practitioners could not get their lines of argument into logical order. This is what peeves people like Eugenie, that incredibly smart non-biologists like Berlinski force them to state their argument in a logical order, so that an intelligent lay person can understand it and see its potential weaknesses. We can't have the lay people knowing that the Modern Synthesis has any weaknesses, can we? That's why she wants criticism of Darwinian theory banned from the schools. Berlinski is spoiling her party. In neo-Darwinian theory, selection is at the level of the organism, not the genes or the proteins. Specifying plausible morphological intermediates is therefore an absolute requirement. Any theoretical work on Darwinian evolution that tries to bypass this requirement, no matter how sophisticated its genetics and no matter how dazzling its comparison of homologous proteins, is not worth the paper it's written on. It looks like this thread is pretty well dead now. It's obvious that no one is going to answer my question about how many papers the ID critics I discussed have published on evolutionary biology in the past ten years. (I suspect the answer, in most cases, is zero.) And Nick's been soundly thrashed, yet again, for his distortions and misrepresentations of ID, and has retreated, and the other participants seem to have drifted away. So unless Elizabeth jumps back in with answers to my earlier responses to her, I'll make my exit. Thanks for all who made it a great discussion.Thomas Cudworth
July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
William A. Dembski:
But Orr was reviewing my book No Free Lunch, and I carefully avoid tying intelligent design’s critique of Darwinism to the unreasonably high standard of logical impossibility or mathematical certainty (though, granted, I employ mathematics).
Mung
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Thanks bornagain77, your words are encouraging :)LivingstoneMorford
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
In the physical and chemical sciences, you see organization of thought in the theories...
Really? In physics, what formula unites general relativity with quantum theory? How can physicists take either seriously when they contradict each other? In chemistry, how do you pridict the folding of a protein from first principles. How can chemistry be taken seriously if it can't answer such a simple question? How can mathematics be taken seriously if it can't answer a simple yes or no question as to whether a simple and elegant proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is possible? As an aside, it's really difficult to participate when it takes 48 hours to get through moderation. For a mild offence committed a year ago. An offence that didn't even reach the level of name calling or of suggesting another poster is on drugs.Petrushka
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
TC @ 326: "I’m trying to be gracious to Elizabeth because she is being gracious to us. That’s rare among our critics. We need people like her, who criticize us gently and reasonably." I think you have a strange idea of what both 'graciousness' and 'reasonable' entail. LE refuses to reason ... and she frequently declines to speak certain truths or to acknowledge any truth that falsifies her constantly-changing assertions. But, she's not frothing-at-the-mouth and calling you stupid, directly (though, her "reasoning" indirectly treats any who attempt to reason with her as being stupid) ... so, yeah, that's real 'gracious' and 'reasonable'.Ilion
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
TC @ 326: "I’m trying to be gracious to Elizabeth because she is being gracious to us. That’s rare among our critics. We need people like her, who criticize us gently and reasonably." I think you have a strange idea of what both 'graciousness' and 'reasonable' entail. LE refuses to reason ... and she frequently declines to speak certain truth or acknowledge truth that falsifies her constantly-changing assertions. But, she's not frothing-at-the-mouth and calling you stupid, directly (though, her "reasoning" indirectly treats any who attempt to reason with her as being stupid) ... so, yeah, that's real 'gracious' and 'reasonable'.Ilion
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
aw shucks :) Thank you Thomas. And I'll try to keep searching for what common ground I think we have :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Mung (308): I'm trying to be gracious to Elizabeth because she is being gracious to us. That's rare among our critics. We need people like her, who criticize us gently and reasonably. In fact, I'm feeling a bit bad about the forcefulness of my earliest comments to Elizabeth. My sense that she was defending Nick and/or the tactics of our other critics got the better of me at times, and I was, if not actually rude, sometimes too aggressive and lecturing in my tone. But she showed great self-control in not getting heated in return, and I thank her for that. (Maybe it's the music in her soul that gives her this composure.) Elizabeth, if you are reading this, I've enjoyed your posts, and I'll work on calming myself down in future replies. Thanks for your patience.Thomas Cudworth
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Petrushka (315): "Perhaps it is a mistake to treat the question as ridiculous, but it is also ridiculous to treat the lack of detail[ed] historical knowledge as equivalent evidence discrediting a theory." Berlinski did not do that. He did not say that because she could not give a number, therefore neo-Darwinism was false. He was asking (as his follow-up questions showed) how, if she did not have the slightest idea what the number might be, she could know that neo-Darwinism was true. I suggest you watch the video if you haven't already. There is a difference between saying: "theory X is false" and "theory X is so poorly formulated that it is not yet in good enough intellectual shape for us to tell whether it is true or false." The latter is Berlinski's critique of Darwinism, as one can see also from the interview in *Expelled*. As for genetic changes producing morphological changes out of proportion to their number, two points: (1) that's not classic neo-Darwinism, which postulates a rough one-to-one correspondence between genotype change and phenotype change, and it's classic neo-Darwinism that the ID people are attacking; and (2) that *still* doesn't exempt a biologist from listing the number of morphological changes necessary to turn one creature into another. Regarding (b), if you don't even know what it is that you need to change, you can't even start talking about evo-devo mechanisms as the means of changing it. If I don't know that whales have fins and artiodactyls have hooves, I can't start speculating on how a hoof might turn into a fin. If I don't know the comparative anatomy of the nostrils in whales and artiodactyls, I can't start speculating on where the blowhole came from. If I don't know the anatomy and physiology of marine lactation, I can't begin to speculate on how it might have derived from land lactation. So whether I'm a neo-Darwinist or an evo-devo follower, my first order of business is to list the number of changes that need to be made. This is less about biology than about just plain clear thinking. Someone who can't see that this preliminary question (*how many* morphological changes, and *which* morphological changes) needs to be answered before the detailed evolutionary explanations can begin, is not a clear thinker. In the physical and chemical sciences, you see organization of thought in the theories; a layman can follow the general logic, even if he can't follow all the detailed math. But in neo-Darwinism, you can't even follow the general logic, because its practitioners hardly ever demonstrate any. Berlinski's question, and Eugenie's evasive answer, make the case that some evolutionary theorists would benefit from taking some courses in logic and/or in the history of scientific theorizing, because clearly some of them have trouble presenting a hypothesis in an orderly way.Thomas Cudworth
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
If you claim to be a whale evolution *specialist* …
Is there such a thing?
Yes. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=whale+evolution&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=1Elizabeth Liddle
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
This, incidentally is the first scientific error Dembski makes – he sets up his hypothesis incorrectly, and so finds himself in a position where no other hypothesis, by definition, can account for the data.
And yet are you not the exact same person who repeatedly argued that the null hypothesis and the alternate hypothesis must be mutually exclusive? Yes, I do believe that was you.
Yes, indeed it was. Is, rather.Elizabeth Liddle
July 20, 2011
July
07
Jul
20
20
2011
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
LivingstoneMorford, if they ignore it [you] hopefully it [you] and all the meddling [science] will go away.junkdnaforlife
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
N.Matzke @ 118
If you aren’t convinced by these works, please come up with a better explanation for the evidence when you write your rebuttal.
There is in this "request" something even more insidious than J.Cassidy discusses @ 316. Ultimately, what Mr Matzke is doing is asserting a faqvoréd ploy of DarwinDefenders when faced with criticism of Darwinism – he is asserting that even if one irrefutably shows that Darwinian “explanations” fail to explain, even if one irrefutably shows that that they are false, and why, that one hasn’t the right to dis-believe them, nor to persuade others to dis-believe them, unless and until one has devised a “better” “explanation” – and Darwinists, of course, get to decide what counts as “better”; and “better” will be something compatible with Darwinism, of that you can be sure. It’s just another gloss on the old, familiar, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”Ilion
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
"Nick doesn’t understand “agnostic”." And that's OK, really; because he also doesn't understand 'skeptic' and 'skeptical'.Ilion
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Nick doesn't understand "agnostic". Mung introduces himself as agnostic, and Nick replies:
If you aren’t convinced by these works, please come up with a better explanation for the evidence when you write your rebuttal.
So if you remain agnostic, you need to have better explanation for what you aren't sure about? Gotcha. If agnostic could possibly have a "better explanation" while maintaining agnosticism, what does that say about the original explanation?jjcassidy
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
LivingstoneMorford, I want to thank you for the time and effort you have put into this thread. It has been very informative.bornagain77
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
I note that my discussion on the implausibility of Nick Matzke's pathway was ignored by the Darwinian side, and I also note that my sequence analysis of the idea that FliM was formed by a FliN/CheC fusion was ignored, even after providing the sequences I used. I wonder why that could be. Oh well.LivingstoneMorford
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
If you claim to be a whale evolution *specialist* ...
Is there such a thing?Mung
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
not having *any idea* of the number, even the order of magnitude, is inexcusable.
That would be seem true only if you know nothing about evo/devo. Genetic changes can produce morphological changes that seem far out of proportion to their number. A single mutation can change the number of limbs, for example. Perhaps it is a mistake to treat the question as ridiculous, but it is also ridiculous to treat the lack of detail historical knowledge as equivalent evidence discrediting a theory. Is there or is there not a simple proof of Fermat's last theorem, a proof that could fit in on a page or two? A simple yes or no question. Does failure to know the answer demonstrate that there is no correct answer?Petrushka
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
goodusername: I don't see the problem regarding dogs. A trained dog breeder could easily identify, say, fifty main differences between a jack russell and a labrador retriever -- fur length, fur curliness, coloration, snout length, snout shape, tail length, tail shape, dentition, average body mass, average height, average length, ear shape, pitch of barks and growls, sleep habits, tendency to dig holes, snappy versus calm temperament, etc. And then, to the extent that these differences were genetically determined (though I'm told by some that many of the differences in dog varieties have as much to do with developmental processes as genetic differences), one could try to determine what parts of the genome are responsible for the various differences in dog varieties. Now if someone were to pose as an expert in dog breeding and a master at producing entirely new types of dogs, or dogs with certain desired characteristics, and I asked: "Can you tell me roughly how many major differences there are between a german shepherd and a poodle?" and the "expert" said "That's a ridiculous question! No dog breeder has *any idea* of the number of differences between a german shepherd and a poodle!" -- well that is one "expert" dog breeder that I would certainly never consult on dog matters. My point is that any evolutionary biologist who claims to be certain that a land mammal became a whale by neo-Darwinian mechanisms must *at a minimum* be able to tell me the main differences (anatomical, physiological, etc.) between the land mammal and the whale. If he is not certain whether the number of major differences is 57 or 58, I'm not going to quibble. But if he's not sure whether the number of differences between a primitive deer or hippo and a modern whale is 10 or 1,000, then I'm certainly not going to have any confidence in his ability to give me an evolutionary pathway from the one to the other. All I would have wanted to hear Eugenie say is something like: "I'd say there are between somewhere between 50 and 200 major differences between the primitive artiodactyl and the whale, depending on how "major" is defined." That's all Berlinski was asking for. Thus, her non-answer seems evasive. And if she didn't honestly know the answer, she could have said: "I'm an anthropologist, not a mammalologist, so I don't know offhand how many crucial differences there are between artiodactyls and whales, but if you will allow me to speak in my field, I can tell you how many major morphological differences there are between the most primitive fossil apes and modern human beings, and I can show you how those differences could easily be bridged by neo-Darwinian processes in the time allowed by the fossil record" -- that would have been a reasonable answer to the question. Instead, she conveyed the view that it was ridiculous to expect evolutionary biologists to have even a rough idea of the number of basic differences between the animals they are discussing. And that's just silly. If you claim to be a whale evolution *specialist* and can't enumerate the main differences between whales and hippos, or whales and deer, you shouldn't be in the evolutionary biology business. Not knowing the exact number off the top of your head is understandable; not having *any idea* of the number, even the order of magnitude, is inexcusable.Thomas Cudworth
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Dembski: "I will be more clear. Once we infer design, the design can be observed, analyzed and evaluated. ID gives us a way to identify, as much as it is possible with present data, specific deseign inputs (for instance, the emergence of protein superfamilies). There are many aspects, observabble aspects, facts, about design input which are in the range of science." All our inferences are provisional. Indeed all our inferences are hypotheses, that should generate further predictions. So, if we conclude that our hypothesis of Design is supported by our data, then the first thing we should ask is: is there an alternative hypothesis that could generate these data? This, incidentally is the first scientific error Dembski makes – he sets up his hypothesis incorrectly, and so finds himself in a position where no other hypothesis, by definition, can account for the data. This is a false rendering of Dembski's position. There's a reason Dembski talks about "inferring" design - because it's exactly that: An inference. I would like to see where Dembski says that once design is inferred we can be certain that an alternative explanation will never emerge - my guess is that there is no place where he says this. Simply suggesting how we can build upon an inference after we've made it is not sufficient to suggest that Dembski "finds himself in a position where no other hypothesis, by definition, can account for the data".nullasalus
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Thomas Cudworth, “goodusername (not!):” :-( “The comparison with dogs is misleading, for dogs, despite many superficial variations, are all of one species” --It isn’t misleading, it’s illustrative of how silly Berlinski’s questions are (or at least how silly it is to it as an argument against darwinism). I purposely chose dog breeds because it’s a change that no one – even the most anti-evolutionary Creationist – would dispute occurred. And yet, if one asked all the same questions about a breed-to-breed transition, one would run into all the same problems. Might the number of morphological differences between one breed and the next be 50k (a number that Berlinski came up with for the evolution to whales) if you looked at every minute morphological detail? Quite possibly. Are we able to list the steps at the molecular or genetic level of how any such change occurred? Not even close. It’s simply well beyond modern science. Some day we MAY be able to put together a* hypothetical* list of changes at the molecular level, but we have ways to go for even that. And yet, as you point out, this is merely a change WITHIN a species. “Note that if Eugenie had answered the question, instead of using up the allotted time in stalling, Berlinski could have used her answer as a springboard to the higher-level theoretical question of evolutionary pathways, as I’ve just done.” --I pretty much agree with you as to how it could have played out. Eugenie Scott could have listed some of the necessary morphological changes for the evolution of whales, and possibly showed how there is a chronological series of intermediate fossils displaying these morphological transitions, and perhaps argued how the DNA evidence agrees with the fossil evidence as to when and from what group of animals whaled evolved, and Berlinski can keep taking the discussion further and start asking about molecular evolutionary pathways and asking questions until we inevitably hit the limits of what science is currently capable of. And that’s fine. Asking such questions is how science progresses. But I do think it silly to use the fact that eventually one hits the limits of current knowledge as an argument against a theory.goodusername
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
This, incidentally is the first scientific error Dembski makes – he sets up his hypothesis incorrectly, and so finds himself in a position where no other hypothesis, by definition, can account for the data.
And yet are you not the exact same person who repeatedly argued that the null hypothesis and the alternate hypothesis must be mutually exclusive? Yes, I do believe that was you.Mung
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Mung: Type "Elizabeth" and "I apologise" into the box below.Elizabeth Liddle
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, Type "Dembski" and "monograph" into your favorite search engine.Mung
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Thomas, Your posts are so much more civil than mine. But I've enjoyed them immensely in spite of that. Thank you.Mung
July 19, 2011
July
07
Jul
19
19
2011
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
1 2 3 12

Leave a Reply