Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Guardian Swallows Darwinian Myths About Academic Freedom Bills

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Today, the UK Guardian newspaper published a piece about academic freedom bills in Colorado, Missouri, Montana and Oklahoma. Readers will not be surprised to learn that the Guardian has seemingly bought into the common myth continuously recycled and promulgated by the NCSE and the Darwin lobby that the bills are “just creationism in disguise”, despite the fact that the bills do not protect the teaching of religious-based views (like creationism), nor even, for that matter, subjects which aren’t already part of the curriculum (like intelligent design). Although the Guardian apparently interviewed critics of the bills, including spokespersons from the NCSE, it seems that they failed to interview any individuals representing the other side. The article in the Guardian even opens with a picture from the Kentucky Creation Museum. Not sure what the relevance of that is. The Guardian also insists on defining intelligent design as the view that “modern life is too complex to have evolved by chance alone.” Of course, that isn’t what ID asserts, nor for that matter does any competent evolutionary biologist think that life even plausibly evolved by chance alone.

Comments
Surely, if one believes that the God of the Bible created the universe, then one is a creationist. But one can be a creationist without believing that. For example, Plato was a creationist, if we're to take Timaeus as Plato's own views (sometimes a dicey proposition with Plato). So were ancient Greek philosophers before him (Anaxagoras, Empedocles) and after (Epictetus and other Stoics). They count as creationists just because they held that cosmic order is the result of some intelligent agent actively organized it. The Epicureans don't count as creationists because they held that cosmic order is the result of chance and necessity operating on atoms as they fall through the infinite void. And the Aristotelians don't count as creationists because, although the Unmoved Mover is the cause of cosmic order, it does so by virtue of being the final cause of that order -- it draws all things to itself by being thought thinking itself. So, here's a proposal: we could distinguish between "rational creationists," "empirical creationists," and "religious creationists," as follows:
Rational creationists hold that a priori rational principles show (or strongly indicate) that cosmic order is the result of some intelligent agent. Empirical creationists hold that the preponderance of empirical evidence strongly indicates that cosmic order is the result of some intelligent agent. Religious creationists hold that revelation shows that cosmic order is the result of a being that deserves to be called 'God.'
Now, one could hold more than one of these views. (Aquinas might have held all three.) And I've phrased them in terms of cosmic order, but of course there are other dimensions of order to consider: the biological order and the moral order, in particular. (Also, I would not want to dismiss non-Abrahamic forms of religious creationism. Hinduism, for example, would count as religious creationism by these criteria.)Kantian Naturalist
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Mung, and All: I don't have any idea what Gregory means by "creationist," but I can explain my own usage of the term, so that people won't be confused when I employ it. By "creationist" I do *not* mean "anyone who believes that the world was created by God." That is a possible meaning of the word, and one which would include all Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Deists, as well as some others. But as I say, it is not how I employ the word. By "creationist" I mean someone whose understanding of biological and and geological and cosmic origins is guided by a literal or close-to-literal reading of Genesis 1-11, understood as "eyewitness history." I would divide creationists into old-earth and young-earth, with the old-earth folks reading Genesis a little more flexibly and imaginatively. And I would understand the young-earth creationists (YECs) as rejecting "evolution" totally, and the old-earth creationists (OECs) as accepting some limited amount of evolution, within large groupings such as hoofed mammals, carnivores, birds of prey, fruit-bearing trees, etc. -- maybe up to the level of "family" or even "order" in biological terms, but not beyond. Certainly classes, phyla and kingdoms would be created directly by God. And man, by a special act of creation, also would be a direct production of God, rather than a "hominid who got a promotion." By this definition, I'm not a creationist, because I (a) give no authority to Genesis 1-11 to pronounce on actual physical origins -- I don't read it as that kind of literature; (b) I have no theological objection to "evolution" provided that the process is understood as planned, programmed, or somehow guided or led by God. It seems to me that the circumstantial evidence for evolutionary change is very strong and that evolution cannot simply be dismissed. So I'm content to work within a tentatively evolutionary understanding, as long as evolution is not insisted upon as a dogma, rather than the best current inference from the data. Within that evolutionary understanding, I most strongly identify with people like Behe, Sternberg, and Denton, who understand evolution in relation to intelligent design. Does that make me an "evolutionist"? If "evolutionist" means: "opposed to the doctrine of creation," then certainly not! If "evolutionist" means "someone who thinks that some sort of evolutionary process has occurred," then I'm an evolutionist. But I also believe that everything was created -- so that would make me a "creationist" in Mung's sense. Indeed, I could even be called a "theistic evolutionist" or "evolutionary creationist," but I avoid those terms, because they have unfortunately been co-opted by people with certain agendas, scientific and theological, that I disagree with. Just as I can no longer use the word "gay" to mean what it almost universally meant 50 years ago, when I was growing up, because such a usage would now be seriously misleading, so I can no longer call myself a "theistic evolutionist" without being associated, in the public mind, with a group of public figures whose views (with about half a dozen exceptions I can think of) are repugnant to me.Timaeus
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
#31 So, Mung openly calls himself a moron. That's probably not even worth noting. More importantly for the OP, does Eric Anderson openly call himself a 'creationist' or not? No lies please! We are still waiting to hear his direct answer to the simple question. Reality: there is little to no attempt by the IDM to oppose 'creationism.' Even if 'Timaeus' calls creationism 'bad science.' In fact, the IDM is openly supported by 'creationists,' even here at UD. Thus, both Eric and Timaeus, in so far as they are IDists, promote creationism. If only their mothers and fathers knew...Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
I am a moron Gregory, I just define moron the way I want to. moron - mung's ontologically relativistic own narrativeMung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Gregory wrote: "I’m not ... an abrasive and condescending contrarian" Everyone here will of course make his or her own private judgment on that, based on Gregory's dialogical habits as we have seen them here. (A typical example of those habits is found in #29 above.) We may all be the best judges of our own intentions, but we are not usually the best judges of our own performance.Timaeus
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
"BY DEFINITION, IF YOU BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, YOU ARE A CREATIONIST!!!!" Moron alert.Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
5) NOT EVERY PERSON WHO BELIEVES GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE IS A ‘CREATIONIST.’
BY DEFINITION, IF YOU BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, YOU ARE A CREATIONIST!!!!Mung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
And Gregory persists in his hypocrisy. For it is he who is always quick to leap from "intelligent design" to the problem of evil. Apparently his "higher education" lacked training in being a perceptive reader and interpreter. Notice how he avoided the question, lol.Mung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Gregory, how come this came to mind after your preceding post? Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0bornagain77
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
BA77, You're bringing this down to pretty much the lowest level possible. I'm a scholar and educator by profession, who is used to higher dialogue than this. And I'm not such an abrasive and condescending contrarian as 'Timaeus' as to thwart my possible promotion in the academic realm. Facts: 1) You are a US citizen. 2) Your understanding is limited to 'creationist' as a US citizen. 3) I am not a US citizen. 4) My understanding of 'creationism' is not limited to US definitions. 5) NOT EVERY PERSON WHO BELIEVES GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE IS A 'CREATIONIST.' Please read #5 carefully, meditate on it, pray about, keep it in your educational cache. Thanks.Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
The internet persona 'Mung' appears to be a kind of psychologically disturbed person that I wouldn't want to hang around with. He hears 'creation' and immediately thinks 'Nazis.' Rather sick, not normal. Don't send your children to listen at his lap! I am not a 'creationist.' Mung repeating to himself that I *am* a creationist because he says so is delusional on the Dawkins scale.Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Yes, I consider the evidence overwhelming to an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) perspective and I believe I can defend that particular position quite well from the empirical evidence alone. But I'm in conflict about you for you stated in a earlier post: "I do not consider myself to be a ‘creationist.’" Yet, you just said that you believe God created the universe. Thus how does it follow, in the definition Eric used,,, "if “creationist” is broadly enough defined, I’d expect the percentage posting here to be way higher than that — perhaps even approaching 100%." ,,that you are not a creationist? It would be mere semantic word play for you to deny you are a 'creationist' if broadly enough defined as Eric intended. ,,, I simply fail to see what all the huff is about that you keep getting all worked up about.bornagain77
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
I told you Gregory was a creationist, even though he claims to not be one. The next question is, does God hold in being the universe and all that is within it at every moment? So the Nazi guard, about to turn on the gas, continues to exist from one moment to the next only because God continues to uphold his being.Mung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Timaeus:
I am sure that StephenB and Mung and many others can easily add to this list of unanswered questions.
If the point of asking questions is to arrive at truth, I don't much see the point.Mung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
"Gregory, do YOU YOURSELF personally think God created the universe or not?" - BA77 Yes. And this is exactly the most important question on the lips of literally every single student who attends the DI's summer program. Evangelical Christians, the lot of them. Now ask yourself please how that changes my simple, direct, basic question to Eric Anderson. Why do you think he can't or so far won't answer his own question when it was asked in regard to his own personal language? According to Eric's own chosen language, does he consider himself to be a ‘creationist’ or not? For that matter, BA77, do you consider yourself to be a 'creationist' or not? I made my position clear in #6.Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Gregory, do YOU YOURSELF personally think God created the universe or not? If not, are these following people dreaded 'creationists' in your book for believing God created the universe? The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’bornagain77
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
No respect for an untenured PhD unoriginal like 'Timaeus' who feels he has to hide behind an on-line mask in order to be heard. A very simple question was asked. But Eric couldn't or wouldn't answer it. 'Nuf said. Eric did not give an answer to my simple question. Can Timaeus not read English language? Does he wish to play devil's advocate so far as to become that which he swore to oppose? It doesn't matter how many 'components' the term 'creationism' can be broken into, just like it doesn't matter how many 'components' 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' can be broken into. The question was a simple one. It was Eric who questioned the definition in #5, thus opening himself up to what he himself means. So far, he has failed entirely to represent him own position: Yes or No? What is it then, a 'maybe' according to Eric's own personal definition? Iow, he simply doesn't know. It would be progress even for him to admit that, if anything other than expressing confusion. Yes, Timaeus, you lob 'protest' at me quite regularly. But it is not 'honest,' not by far. Come out publically from your private puppet show and you'll realise how speaking in your own real (.411) name influences how willing you are to deceive others for your own propagandist purposes. I don't think you have the courage to show yourself and I will not be dragged down by your personal and evident fear. I asked an amazingly simple question to Eric Anderson: So, according to your own chosen language, do you consider yourself to be a ‘creationist’? How far will Timaeus and Eric go to avoid giving a direct simple answer to this question? Timaeus is not a 'creationist,' though he is quite obviously a marginal (unorthodox) Big-IDist (who flip-flop now calls himself simply a small-idist). What is Eric Anderson?Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Gregory accuses Eric of not clearly answering his question. Yet Eric gave a very full answer to his question, breaking down the term "creationist" into various components, and giving a separate answer to each component, thus providing far more information, and far more clarity, than if he had answered simply "yes" or "no." Gregory paid $1.00 for his coffee and got steak and eggs thrown in. Gregory, on the other hand, is notorious here for failing to answer questions. On almost every thread here on which he participates, he fails to answer a number of questions. The recent 400-comments monster discussion of the piece by Mr. Murray provides many examples of evasion by Gregory of countless questions and criticisms by several different commenters. Among the questions which Gregory has refused to answer in various discussions on this site (which I will here rephrase to help those missing the original contexts of the discussions) have been: 1. Do you believe that the historical Adam and Eve not only existed, but were the *only* biological parents of every human being that has ever lived, so that all human fossil forms that have been found, or ever will be found, that are human, will have Adam and Eve, and no other more primitive hominids, as their ancestors? 2. Do you believe, as Steve Fuller believes, that ID -- meaning the detection of intelligent design in nature -- can be "natural science" in the true sense? 3. Do you believe, as Steve Fuller believes, in "univocal predication," against Feser -- that it is legitimate to speak of God as intelligently designing things? 4. Which ID technical books have you read from cover to cover? 5. How many days did you spend at Discovery? 6. What was the program there? 7. Which books or articles did you read during those days? 8. Were you evaluated by Discovery staff at the end of the program for your knowledge of ID? 9. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the program? 10. What changes to the program would you recommend? I am sure that StephenB and Mung and many others can easily add to this list of unanswered questions. If Gregory is inclined to take this response as another example of my "rhetoric," I cannot stop him. But in fact this response is exactly what it seems to be: not a rhetorical trick of any kind, but simply an honest protest against someone who constantly accuses people here of failing to answer his questions, when he himself fails to answer questions on a regular basis. The proper response to my charge is not "Another rhetorical flourish by Timaeus in the service of the political program of Big-ID!" The proper responses are: "1. I've been unreasonable to criticize Eric's full reply and I drop my baseless charge that he has failed to answer my question. Any further answer to Eric that I make will engage the honestly-set-forth contents of his post. "2. I've been applying a double standard here all along, demanding absolute clarity from everyone else regarding every single question I ask, while I myself have answered many questions evasively and incompletely, and others not at all. "3. To make up for my past uncooperative behavior, here are my answers to the above questions which I never answered in their original context; and I invite all commenters here to submit similar lists of their unanswered questions to me, which I undertake to answer before posting anything new here." Now if Gregory would respond in such a manner as I've suggested, respect for him would go way up in these here parts.Timaeus
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Eric, No, not a 'semantic game.' It rather reveals how some people don't have a clue even what they believe and sometimes that they don't stand for anything. And yet a very small and largely inconsequential American movement promotes Big-ID for a variety of oftentimes secret reasons. It is not 'mere semantics' but reveals the philosophical anthropology of the ignorant or deceitful. "many possible definitions exist" - Eric Anderson That relativism is erased by my direct question to you: according to your own chosen language, do you consider yourself to be a ‘creationist’? You've flip-flopped and diverted from giving a direct answer. Have you no personality? Have you no language of your own? It's a rather simple question, asked in the English language. Yes or No? Are you, according to you, a 'creationist' or not? It is absurd that you feel you have to ask me to define whether or not you are a 'creationist' when free will exists in your own heart!! Otherwise, have you no knowledge or understanding of your own personal views?! This thread shows how duplicitous Big-IDists actually can be.Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Gregory:
I spoke clearly and directly, while you dodged clarity.
LOL!!! On the contrary, Eric spoke clearly and directly because he defined his terms. You, on the other hand, spoke ambiguously and dishonestly because no one here knows what you mean when you say you are not a 'creationist.'Mung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Gregory:
I do not consider myself to be a ‘creationist.’ That’s not a difficult admission to make.
Yet you are a Creationist. Go figure. I'm a New Creationist.Mung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Gregory:
But the IDM is in bed with creationists and with the “religious conservatives” mentioned in the article.
I'm planning a visit to the DI. I'll be on the lookout for those beds.Mung
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Isn't this a fun semantic game, Gregory? I have no particular personal need to define myself as a "creationist" or not. Because I understand that it is just a semantic label and I am more interested in the underlying substance. Nor do I feel any need to pretend that there is only one true definition of the term that would then allow me to place myself within it or without it. I made two points quite clearly: (i) many possible definitions exist, (ii) if defined broadly enough many (probably most) people would fall within it. I have not claimed that one particular definition is correct and must be adhered to by all people ever using the word (notwithstanding your desire for such rigidity ). Since you appear to be hung up on labels and definitions, why don't you give me a definition that you think is the true definition and then I'll tell you whether I fall within it.Eric Anderson
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
"So, am I a 'creationist'?" - Eric Anderson From #10, obviously the answer is: You either don't personally know or won't say clearly if you are or are not! I asked for you to say Yes or No in your own language and you proceeded to give a diversion and to evade the simple, basic question. That is a tell-tale non-admission for an IDist, Eric Anderson. I spoke clearly and directly, while you dodged clarity. "The designer is the God of the Old Testament. No, I do not necessarily think this can be demonstrated." - Eric Anderson But do you personally believe that is the case, even if it can't be (natural scientifically) 'demonstrated'? You seemed in #5 to want to include yourself as a 'creationist' via your 'approaching 100%' claim. Now the claim is unclear.Gregory
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Nice try, Gregory, but a simple "yes-no" will not suffice. That's a tactic of someone who is trying to trip someone else up. We both know that the typical pejorative use of "creationist" in the media, in popular books, in evolutionary literature, refers to some kind of fundamental Biblical literalism. So I'm not going to give you the pleasure of a simple "yes" without defining terms and let you go off with whatever impression you may create in your own mind about what you think I meant. I could stop there, but in the interest of moving a discussion forward in some reasonable fashion I will go ahead and provide a few simplistic definitions to give you a better idea of where I stand. - Fundamental Biblical literalism, with all the trappings about a young Earth, creation in six 24-hour days, etc. No, I do not hold to this view. - Humans have only been around for about 6-10,000 years. No, I do not necessarily hold to this view (although I would say the record of human history is regularly wildly overblown by evolutionists and there are some intriguing counterarguments worth considering). - Evolution has no place and has played no role in the history of life on Earth. No, I do not hold to this view. There are some real and demonstrable processes at work that can be termed (with some definitional license) "evolution." - Life was created by a transcendent being. No, I do not necessarily hold to this view. This kind of discussion typically gets quickly bogged down in what is meant by "transcendent." I don't think that the artifacts of biology themselves give any basis for determining whether a designer is "transcendent" or not. A designer may be, but that is not something I think biology can tell us. - There was one, and only one, designer of life. No, I do not necessarily hold to this view. Again, I do not think we have enough information yet to make that determination, if indeed it is ever possible at all. - Each life form we see today was initially created de-novo in the form we see it today. No, I do not hold to this view. However, I also reject the idea that there could not have been any creative intervention during the history of life (i.e., some would prefer that the watchmaker wind up the clock and then leave, never to act again). - The designer is the God of the Old Testament. No, I do not necessarily think this can be demonstrated. Logically, it could of course be true, but I do not think biology tells us this much. - Some intelligent agent infused additional information in life in order to produce new body plans, new families, classes, orders, and possibly new genera and some species, whether through front-loading or through direct creative intervention. Yes. - Some intelligent agent created initial Earth life. Yes. ----- There are certain things we can ascertain from biology through scientific study itself. Those are the things I hold to; I am not looking to a sacred text (although there is much in the Bible that is consistent with what we have learned from studying biology). But that there was intelligent agency involved in biology? Absolutely. So, am I a "creationist?" :)Eric Anderson
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Related note: Film The Revisionaries Revises History of 2009 Texas State Board of Education Evolution Debate - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-01-30T17_20_56-08_00 On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin shows how the film The Revisionaries revises history. Coming soon to PBS, The Revisionaries falsely suggests that intelligent design and creationism were required in the 2009 Texas Science Standards (TEKS) and pushed for by ignorant fundamentalist board members who ignored the advice of all qualified experts. Tune in as Casey exposes this misinformation and reviews the hard facts.bornagain77
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
It is interesting to point out that ID uses the very same method of science to infer design that Darwin himself used to infer common ancestry (presently acting cause known to produce effect in question):
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design https://vimeo.com/32148403
But the bills, as far as I know, don't even protect that simple inference (as benign as that inference may seem to be). The bills, as far as I know, just protects teachers from being persecuted by Darwinists,,,
EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - Part 1 of 10 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk
,,, the bills just protect teachers for teaching evidence against evolution without fear of reprisal. Why is it such a 'sin' in the atheistic mindset to teach children where the gaping holes in evolutionary theory are? Why are they so fearful that they must protect their 'scientific' theory, by threat, deception, and force? Why don't they just let the evidence speak for itself?bornagain77
February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
Its about teaching the truth. Who decides what is the truth in origin? Who decides what is not? If the schools censor one side then they are saying its not true since its about subjects saying they are about the truth.Robert Byers
January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
That's a very good point, Eric. So, according to your own chosen language, do you consider yourself to be a 'creationist'? A simple yes or no answer will do just fine. I do not consider myself to be a 'creationist.' That's not a difficult admission to make.Gregory
January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
. . . approximately 35% of posters at UD are themselves ‘creationists.’
Gee, if "creationist" is broadly enough defined, I'd expect the percentage posting here to be way higher than that -- perhaps even approaching 100%.Eric Anderson
January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply