We cannot live by scepticism alone

_{Mario Lopez

March 5, 2009

Science}

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

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Comments

mullerpr, Please provide your definition of information. I've thought "specified complexity" but it did not help. What units are you measuring information in please? If I give you some examples, could you tell me which ones have more or less information in then the others?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I have a hard time taking your comments in 44 seriously, because philosophy has never successfully served as a judge of science. Can you give examples of philosophy successfully judging the worth of a scientific claim?David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Hi George, You have a very strange concept of what information is. I can ask you to put your examples within any definition of information that you think might be valid, then we can talk again. Think specified complexity, it might help. If you want examples of design read more on this site. I think we have deviated enough from the topic and I will conclude here. Maybe we discuss this issue on some other thread some day.mullerpr_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

It was only when they insisted that their oppression violated the “natural moral law” that they were given their due.
There are legions of people around the world in conditions unimaginable that would disagree. Ask a child prostitute in a slum town and I suspect it would take more to change their living conditions then them saying (nay, insisting!) that the natural moral law was being violated.
In other words, their oppressioin just wasn’t right because it violated the “inherent dignity of the human person,” a principle that you obviously do not believe in.
Why do you say that? Any particular reason? And if I do believe in the "ingerent dignity of the human person" what then? How could that possibly be?
Skepticism is a belief system and it makes wide sweeping claims that far surpass the modest claims of ID science.
At least it calls Tarot cards out for what they are - total rubbish.George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

FreeLurker at 115 and David Kellogg at 123 If you read my comments at 44, you will find that I took the subject matter of the thread head on and provided a critique on some of the assumptions. All my comments after that were responses to reactions to what I wrote. George's foray into ID, on the other hand, constituted a total change in direction and an evasion of the subject matter. It is one thing for a discussion to develop naturally with twists and turns; it is quite another thing for it to be derailed.StephenB_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
As a skeptic and a moral relativist, you have no standard for right and wrong because you disavow objective morality.
How is the objective morality communicated to you, personally?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

-----George Farquhar: “Earlier in this thread it was noted that “morality” appears to have changed over time. “ Yes, and I pointed out that morality cannot change over time or else it is not morality. If an act is moral in one generation and not another generation, then one can just as easily say that the new expression of morality is illegitimate as well as the old. The newest morality is not necessarily the best morality. Indeed, only “norms” can change. Morality always remains the same. ------“At one time slave ownership was the done thing. -------At one time the opression of women was the done thing. -------At one time opression of people based upon race was the done thing. -------At one time the sacrifice of virgins to unseen powers was the done thing. --------So where was your objective morality during those times?” Obviously, it wasn’t being practiced. It was only through an appeal to objective morality that all these groups were liberated. In that past, those who were oppressed were told that the majority opinion was not on their side and that they did not deserve equality. Or, they were told that they were less than complete human beings. It was only when they insisted that their oppression violated the “natural moral law” that they were given their due. In other words, their oppressioin just wasn’t right because it violated the “inherent dignity of the human person,” a principle that you obviously do not believe in. As a skeptic and a moral relativist, you have no standard for right and wrong because you disavow objective morality. Even now, you cannot tell me why owning slaves, oppressing women, or sacrificing virgins is a bad thing. You cannot say that it is “wrong,” which is why your position is irrational. -----“The original Tarot cards issue came up because you said in response to my original post.” No, it came up because you injected it into the discussion. -----“And I’m just trying to find out if the Tarot is something that “acknowledge the reality of design” or not, which is what you seem to imply.” The question cannot be answered because ID is not a belief system that passes judgment on other belief systems; it is a description of a scientific methodology. Examples of belief systems would be, epistemological realism, rationalism, empiricism, skepticism, theistic dualism, atheistic materialism, or pantheistic monism. Skepticism is a belief system that passes judgments on other belief systems. To ask of ID a belief system question is to ask a philosophical question. An equivalent and equally meaningless question would be this: do practitioners of the occult acknowledge the reality of random variation and natural selection as the sole explanation for biodiversity, or do they acknowledge the reality of design in nature. The only way to get an answer to that question is to ask those who participate in that kind of behavior. So, if your curiosity persists, then by all means, ask someone in that group what he or she thinks. -----“Onlookers, you only but have to read the thread in it’s entirety to see my point.” I sincerely hope that onlookers will examine the history of this discussion. It is incumbent on you to provide a rational justification for moral subjectivism and moral relativism if you think you can. That is the subject of this thread. Skepticism is a belief system and it makes wide sweeping claims that far surpass the modest claims of ID science. If you want to discuss ID, there are plenty of threads available for that and I will engage you at the proper time and place.StephenB_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

mullerpr
The only argument against design in the origin of life is a proven physical process that can create information out of randomness.
What looks like empty space is full of information. A pile of sand contains more information then every human book ever written. Neither you nor me know sufficent information about the origin of life to say anything with any confidence about it. Unless you have access to a time-machine? Were you there? All you can seem to say is what it was not, and not what it was. Until then, all you have is naysaying other peoples ideas. Try proposing some of your own. You may find that the ideas you have been ignoring are harder to knock down then your own and what then? Will you continue to belief in ideas you cannot defend in preference to an idea with more support? How is that rational?
The detection of design is the ID objective, not “profiling” the designer.
And what designs have been detected so far? E.G. Is all life designed, just some of it or what? How do you tell teh difference? Can you give me an example of a designed and a non-designed organism? Are only IC structures designed, or is that just one way to tell?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

George, I understand your point perfectly and I have given you the answer already and on this site the answer to your question is abundantly clear, just open your mind to a non materialist approach. And don't break the causal chain just because you prefer it to look that way. The only argument against design in the origin of life is a proven physical process that can create information out of randomness. The detection of design is the ID objective, not "profiling" the designer. However, in your analogy and your problem with being able to "convince" the race that "I caused their existence". I guess I would proof it through maintaining a logically compatible relationship with them, because there is nothing in this or any universe that suggests that the laws of logic is variant. You need the laws of logic to make sense of all phenomena of this universe as well as any possible universe i.e. any possible state of the hypothetical evolution you presented. But that's just the way I would handle your problem even though it is not an ID problem.mullerpr_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

mullerpr
Since you have nothing to offer to defend your irrational position that there exist something that I coined on your behalf as “naturalisation of design”.
Imagine you design and create a simple replicating organism. Now, seed a planet with it. You put your name into it's DNA. Come back a few billion years later. You find a race of beings with very advanced technology. Do you think there would be much of a relationship between that original first organism and the end result? Is your name still going to be readable from the DNA type material you find? If you only had the two things you might find it hard to make your case. Or to put it another way, lets say you discovered an organism on a planet that was unable to process a resource that was abundant. You take it and adjust it's DNA (or whatever it was using) to enable it to process that resource. You come back a few billion years later. The organism has turned into a space faring race. How would you be able to prove to them that their current position was due to a tweak you made way back in the (to them) mists of time? Or finally. Let's say you have a picture (the Mona Lisa). You apply a filter in photoshop to twist it about. And then again. And again. Soon you won't be able to recognise the picture at all. Given a number of such adjusted pictures, what method are you going to use to determine which pictures were originally meaningful and which were not (some were random static from the very start)? Can you not see my point? What is the essential "indicator of design" that can be preseved no matter what amount of geologic time passes?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Joseph
If there are two positions, ie designed or not designed, then disproving one does add credence to the other.
This is indeed true. However there are more then two positions available.
What are the published papers that support the non-telic, adesign position?
Almost all published papers support that viewpoint. There are several hundred thousand, at least. mullerpr
I have to presume you only find comfort in naturalistic dogma promoted by main stream scientism. You are welcome to do that, just don’t call it science.
If "main stream scientism" calls it science then by definition it is science. "Science" is a human construct and as such humans define it. The majority of humans involved in this (scientists with their scientism) appear to disagree with you.
This is an attempt at a version of Dawkins’s infinite complex cause that you turned in an infinite regress of causation.
The start of the universe could be something like, for example, the north pole. There is no time "earlier" then the zero time just as there is no point further north then the north pole itself. Yet there is nothing very special about the north pole itself. You would not know you were there unless you were told. As we've only just, as a species, started to peer back into the start of the universe I think it's probably a bit early to declare victory for either side, don't you think?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Hi George, Since you have nothing to offer to defend your irrational position that there exist something that I coined on your behalf as "naturalisation of design". I have to presume you only find comfort in naturalistic dogma promoted by main stream scientism. You are welcome to do that, just don't call it science. Your last objection: "Then, logically, there is an infinite chain of consciousnesses stretching back through time, each creating the next in turn?" This is an attempt at a version of Dawkins's infinite complex cause that you turned in an infinite regress of causation. You should have used Dawkins's "complexity" argument because now you need to make it clear why you object to it and what naturalistic alternative you suggest. Any naturalistic approach that I know of require an infinite causal regress. I am sorry to let you know that logically there is no such a thing as an infinite regress of causation that can instantiate in any possible natural universe or multi-verse (it seems if David Hilbert would agree with me on this - look for Hilbert's Hotel... and it seems as if you intuitively agreed with that). However the existence of a causal entity is, contrary to what Dawkins, (locked in his naturalistic commitments), might think, NOT infinitely complex. In fact it is absolutely simplistic for the simple reason that there is no mechanism necessary for an entity that is not extended in time and space. Read some on Divine Simplicity - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/mullerpr_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

And as for published papers- What are the published papers that support the non-telic, adesign position?Joseph_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

George, If there are two positions, ie designed or not designed, then disproving one does add credence to the other. That said the empirical evidence for design is in the basics of biology- transcription, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, more proof-reading and translation.Joseph_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Freelurker (115), you are right. It is interesting that this thread has almost never been on the topic of the linked paper -- which mentions ID as being supported by skepticism (in its allusion to the Dover trial). Seems odd to insist on staying on topic now.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

mullerpr
Distance from an event of design has absolutely no power to naturalize such an event for the simple reason that such a phenomenon would, physically and philosophically violate the principles of causation.
Then why is the case for the design of life not already been made, accepted and put into pratice in every field of research and applied science? What do you know to say this that everybody else does not?
Suggesting the emergence of code, consciousness and intelligence through any natural causation has NO empirical support
Is the lack of empirical support for postion X then postive evidence for position Y? I think not. To prove Y you need to do more then disprove X. What is your empirical evidence in support of your position?
, but there is enough empirical support that shows it can come about through the act of an existing consciousness.
Then, logically, there is an infinite chain of consciousnesses stretching back through time, each creating the next in turn?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

StephenB
I have indicated that the denial of objective truth and objective morality is, itself, an exercise in irrationaliy.
Earlier in this thread it was noted that "morality" appears to have changed over time. At one time slave ownership was the done thing. At one time the opression of women was the done thing. At one time opression of people based upon race was the done thing. At one time the sacrifice of virgins to unseen powers was the done thing. So where was your objective morality during those times? The original Tarot cards issue came up because you said in response to my original post:
You are trying to compare apples with oranges. ID is not a belief system, so it can accomodate all kinds of world views that acknowledge the reality of design.
And I'm just trying to find out if the Tarot is something that "acknowledge the reality of design" or not, which is what you seem to imply. Onlookeers, you only but have to read the thread in it's entirety to see my point.George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: mullerpr: CJYman: Domoman: We have an abundance of threads on the subject of ID, all of which allow our critics to throw their best questions at us. This thread, on the other hand, allows us to put questions to our adversaries. The title of this post is, "We cannot live by skepticism alone." George L. Farquhar entered this discussion with a wild and crazy scenario about ID and Tarot cards, hoping to engage me in a related discussion and disrupt the momemtum of the dialogue. His questions to you about ID are designed to do the same thing. He doesn't want to engage me or anyone else on the present subject matter of skepticism. I have indicated that the denial of objective truth and objective morality is, itself, an exercise in irrationaliy. While that point is directly related to skepticism, George has no interest in discussing that one either. On another thread concerning science's propoer place, he is playing the same game, ignoring the subject matter and asking irrelevant questions about the "designer." Adel, Seversky, and others are engaging us about skepticism, and I think that we should insist that George do the same. As long as we allow him to grill us about intelligent design, he will, like his colleagues, remain immune from scrutiny. Let's scrutinize him shall we and save our ID apologetics for ID discussions. We don't get that many opportunities to turn the tables.StephenB_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Hi George, I hope you are enjoying yourself, but you need to be careful not to over stretch your imagination. I asked: " Would your argument imply that it will be possible to attribute isolated code as coming from design, but self replicating code, like computer viruses, you will not be able to attribute to design because it self replicate or “breed”?" You responded: " If you have, for example, a system that was originally designed but which had the capacity to change itself, and you let it do so could you then point to a given part of that system after many such iterations and say “that is designed”? Or would the fact that it “takes on a life of it’s own” nullify that? As nobody knows how life begain the question is open." Now I like to respond: Do you call this fantasy "the naturalization of design"? It is a nice dream that might sound plausible to you, but there is no known physical or logical process that can achieve this type of "naturalization". Distance from an event of design has absolutely no power to naturalize such an event for the simple reason that such a phenomenon would, physically and philosophically violate the principles of causation. So, rather ...don't dream about this "panel beating" of causal reality and stick to the fact that the only known cause of code is design through intelligence. Suggesting the emergence of code, consciousness and intelligence through any natural causation has NO empirical support, but there is enough empirical support that shows it can come about through the act of an existing consciousness. If we manage to create true AI, it will only count as more empirical support for the causal effect of intelligence, no matter how far we go into the future. What you suggest is that we should turn a blind eye just to accommodate your irrational need to maintain naturalism. The falsification of this position is very simple... Show empirically that nature can cause code to emerge from randomness/non-code. If you show that I will reconsider my current appeal to design.mullerpr_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

An idiotic mistake on my part: for "grandfather" read "brother." That's what comes of writing quickly. Moderator: my comments are still awaiting moderation. I'd appreciate it if you released this correction simultaneously with the comment it corrects.David Kellogg_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

KF
What happens, onlookers, is that he possibility of “a Divine Foot” in the door is leading to a panic among the evolutionary materialist magisterium.
By "Divine foot" I presume you mean "God"? I thought that Intelligent Design cannot speak to the identity of the designer? What basis do you have for thinking that the designer has divine aspects? I understood there was no requirement for the designer to be supernatural, and yet it appears you have let the cat out of the bag here. Why is the foot in the door divine? Why do you make the jump to the supernatural? Even Dawkins admitted that the "designer" could be an alien and not supernatural at all. If he can, can you not also?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Of course where I said "Otherwise things would tend to move to a state of lower entropy" I should have said "higher" entropy.George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

StephenB: Meanwhile, the subject under discussion is the irrational nature of skepticism. The scepticism that you and others have been discussing here is completely different from what Collins was talking about in his essay. Please read the first two paragraphs, at least. Collins is talking about scepticism about science in the form of post-modernism.Freelurker_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

KF
Kindly note I have presented an argument based not on impossibility but on search space, search resource exhaustion.
It's how you search the space that is important. Your concept of "Random search" is flawed.
It is maximally improbable to reach the shores of islands of function in relevant config spaces.
If you have proven this then it would be a significant addition to the body of knowledge regarding OOL. Publish a paper.
Those are the same grounds on which re trust the reliability of the statistical forms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as you can see in my discussion in the always linked APP 1.
This is true. For increasing complexity the earth would need a constant source of new energy. Otherwise things would tend to move to a state of lower entropy. Can anybody think of such an external source of energy that the earth is absorbing?
I repeat: we routinely see the creation of functionally specific complex information by intelligent designers. And FSCI is a reliable sign of such design.
Can you put a figure on the FSCI content of some things for me? An Onion. A lego brick. A pyramid made of diamond.
What happens, onlookers, is that he possibility of “a Divine Foot” in the door is leading to a panic among the evolutionary materialist magisterium.
What evidence do you have for this, other then that you say it is so?
Who’da thought Faraday generators would be relevant to solar system formation and the Laplace nebular hypothesis angular momentum anomaly!)
Indeed, who would have thought. Now, are you going to publish your ideas in a forum where they might make a difference, or continue to make excuses?George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

KF
have you seen just how much effort and care it has taken to for instance get the latest two Marks-Dembski papers to the point of such publication?
So it's not impossible then? Often the hardest things in life are the most worthwhile. You won't know if the door is locked or not until you try and open it.
Have you seen how they have had to conceal the identity of the journals until the papers actually come out? Why is that?
I don't know, why is that? What's the point in that as the identity will become known once they are published. So what is gained?
And, had you actually reads the relevant papers you will see that they in part make the very same points I have made above and in the linked. (Indeed, where useful I cite from them.)
Another excuse. I thought your reason for not publishing was that the reason was the door was locked, not that somebody else is already publising similar ideas.
I repeat: the magisterium is locking the door, barring it and expelling any it can catch hiding out in the corners.
And yet Dembski and Marks are publishing. And yet there is a list of ID supporting papers at the Discovery Institute.
It has even gone so far as to tendentiously redefine science in ways that cannot be justified historically or epistemologically.
And the only way you are going to fight that, if you believe it needs to be fought, is by making your own case in your own words. Publish or not, the choice is yours. If you don't think your ideas can stand scrunity then I'm not surprised you make excuses. It is possible you might learn something from the critics in a peer reviewed enviroment you know!George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

GLF: Kindly note I have presented an argument based not on impossibility but on search space, search resource exhaustion. (Cf e.g. the always linked app 7, and the discussion in Sections A, B and C.) It is maximally improbable to reach the shores of islands of function in relevant config spaces. Those are the same grounds on which re trust the reliability of the statistical forms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as you can see in my discussion in the always linked APP 1. I repeat: we routinely see the creation of functionally specific complex information by intelligent designers. And FSCI is a reliable sign of such design. What happens, onlookers, is that he possibility of "a Divine Foot" in the door is leading to a panic among the evolutionary materialist magisterium. And, bye for now. I will take time for a more methodical discussion on points anon, DV. (Been just scooping up what catches my eye while I consider on other matters elsewhere. Who'da thought Faraday generators would be relevant to solar system formation and the Laplace nebular hypothesis angular momentum anomaly!) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

GLF: have you seen just how much effort and care it has taken to for instance get the latest two Marks-Dembski papers to the point of such publication? Have you seen how they have had to conceal the identity of the journals until the papers actually come out? Why is that? And, had you actually reads the relevant papers you will see that they in part make the very same points I have made above and in the linked. (Indeed, where useful I cite from them.) I repeat: the magisterium is locking the door, barring it and expelling any it can catch hiding out in the corners. It has even gone so far as to tendentiously redefine science in ways that cannot be justified historically or epistemologically. So, please get real. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus:
As I said, you have to get to the shores of an island before you can climb to the mountain-tops.
And again, I note that as nobody knows the answer to the orgin of life you cannot say one way or the other that it is impossible to reach the shores.
And the config spaces for those islands — as GLF has to acknowledge — are vastly beyond astronomical.
Acknowledged. However as they are not searched randomly, I fail to see your point. Nearby spaces are searched, only. One small step at a time.
Formation of FSCI by design — including the active information of oracles thatbroadcast warmer-colder signals to non-functional configs — is a routine observation or experience
Unfortunatly for you FCSI is a concept that has failed to gain traction outside of this blog. As such the onus is your you to show it has relevance. If the FCSI issue proves your point, I'm sure the Discovery Institute would be more then happy to help publish your paper regarding it.
GLF, all you are doing is revealing that you have begged the material question, and are exerting selective hyperskepticism. In short, onlookers: selective hyperskepticism, again.
Onlookers, if this means that I don't believe what Kariosfocus is saying by default then yes, I don't. Kariosfocus, you have to make your case, not bully people into accepting it. Publish it. I'm sure the tens of thousands of words you have written on the subject could be edited down and published. If you won't even try then you cannot complain about "only materialistic plays are allowed in their Plato’s Cave shadow-shows". Logically you would be in a much stronger position if you could say "I wrote a paper but it was not published because of bias" rather then "I did not write a paper because I knew in advance it would not be published". Those who do not even try will always fail. People will help you if you can show obvious unwarranted bias. Nobody will be interested in helping if you don't take that first step yourself.George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Adel: Please. There is an historical context for Huxley's remarks. Cliffordian evidentialism; cf 62 and 79. Tthat makes it very plain that Huxley's natural meaning was [1] it is ETHICALLY wrong, and [2] objective means those truths we discover rather than invent. (SB is simply being accomodating for the sake of argument.) Further to this, on what empirical evidential grounds do we establish the principle that only empirically warranted claims should be trusted? In short, you are here going in a self-refuting circle, through the problem of self-referential inconsistency. It is pretty well established that all worldviews have core commitments accepted without further proof, and that they use such to integrate the view, anchoring to other claims that are in part empirically warranted. Going beyond that, empirical evidence under-determines wordviews, cf the Lord Russell 5 minute old universe that appears just like thye one we think we inhabit as an illustration. how do you decide betwixt the two -- not on empirical data as they are strictly empirically equivalent. Cf my Phil 101 Toolkit. GEM of TKI PS: onlookers, observe how the skeptics are repeatedly showing elementary gaps in their thought systems, gaps that have been routinely addressed by any reasonably standard survey of worldviews course or book for a long time now.kairosfocus_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus:
Sorry, the Lewoninian a priori Magisterium has locked that door, GLF. Only materialistic plays are allowed in their Plato’s Cave shadow-shows.
Untrue. Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640 Try another excuse.George L Farquhar_{March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 18 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply