« Three Cheers for Calvin Coolidge | Main | The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part II: Of Science and Religion »

December 21, 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Wayne Thomson

I am going to say this just once.

Jay Byrd and Deborah Spaeth, if I was an atheist like you two I would blow your brains out in two seconds.

May God have mercy on your souls.

Rev. Bruce Land

Brothers and sisters.

My name is Pastor Land of Our Rovian Savior Neo-Baptist Megachurch.

I must rebuke the words uttered by Timmy's father, a member of my flock. Atheists deserve our pity, not our vengeance.

Our righteous anger should be directed at those who, in black robes and hoods, deem to make the laws which promulgate the secular reign of terror into which this Christian nation has been plunged.

Timmy, if you are still reading this thread, let me give you some advice. If you find yourself in a classroom where the idol of secular materialism is being burnished, simply reach into your pocket and find yourself a shiny American coin. On one side of that coin you will find four words that have been put there to comfort you.

Brothers and sisters, peace be unto you all.

Mr. Bird and Ms. Spaeth, I pray that you will discover the spiritual Vicodin you are seeking.

Timmy's Uncle

Hi Timmy and Timmy's pastor. I am Timmy's Uncle and I am a monkey. Please deal with it.

Kali

CTW: Which of Darwin's claims have been disproved, exactly? When I read the "Origin", Darwin sounds pretty convincing to me, and is making quite subtle distinctions between his and competing explanations of species deviation. I've also heard that "several" of his claims have been disproved and that the fact is well known to scientists. I haven't actually seen too many people willing to say exactly what has been disproved. I suppose one could say things like Darwin was wrong in some particulars, but in the main right. But after a certain point, doesn't a theory that has to be constantly "modified" start to look at least a little obsolete? And by the way, how does one tell the difference between the "minor" parts of Darwin's theory that have been disproved and the "major" parts that remain valid? Which chapters in Darwin should I just skip over, and which really count for us today?

Of course, I'm not sure how anybody knows that--at least on this forum. I have to admit; it's a good thing Darwin himself did not think like his current supporters, for the scientific establishment in his time was far from thinking that species naturally evolved into one another under natural selection pressure. The same could be said of Copernicus, who defied Ptolemaic orthodoxy among the astronomers of his day to set forth his heliocentric model. If he, or Darwin, had taken the scientific authorities' word for it, then what we call the modern scientific consensus would look very different.

Amos, quite frankly, why should I believe you've read Darwin? You offer no evidence, empirical or otherwise, of any acquaintance with his works. Darwin certainly did not make distinctions between scientific and scientific-sounding arguments ("scientific- sounding" to whom?) He addressed the objections to the theory as best he could. Maybe throw us a bone here--a quote from Origin (that's easy, and a sign one has at least skimmed the most important theorist of life in modern thought, but hey, if you're too "busy" blogging to do that, I'll understand).

For my part, I've read the historical sketch and the introduction. I've also read the conclusion, and I'm almost through with chapter one. Obviously I'm not an authority, but I plan to get through this work or die trying. Who's with me?

Amos

Kali

I have read Darwin, quite a while ago. I agree that he was very kind to his opponents and was *extremely* self-critical. (I also agree that everyone should be a little more like him in these respects.) Only, I don't fully understand why it's important to you that anyone reads his work. But since you care:

One example of a mistake of his is that he was wrong about his mechanism for heredity. He proposed a theory called pangenesis in "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication" and wrote more on it in "The Descent of Man".

According to this theory, cells would shed "gemmules" that collect in the reproductive organs. By this mechanism, the collection of cells of a parent--rather than a common blueprint like DNA--determines the features of offspring. This has since been replaced by genetics.

Amos

Kali: "Darwin certainly did not make distinctions between scientific and scientific-sounding arguments ("scientific- sounding" to whom?) He addressed the objections to the theory as best he could."

From your post it looks like that was directed at me. I can't imagine why. Perhaps you've mixed my name up with someone else's post?

Unsympathetic reader

Kali: "I suppose one could say things like Darwin was wrong in some particulars, but in the main right. But after a certain point, doesn't a theory that has to be constantly "modified" start to look at least a little obsolete?"

It can appear that way if done ad hoc. That is what effectively killed Natural Theology and continues to plague ID today -- No ability to delimit or guess what is possible under a theory (See Elliott Sober: "Philosophy of Biology" for further discussion). This is not the case for Darwin. What follows post-Darwin is the further elucidation of the core mechanisms behind evolution (e.g. the nature of genetic inheritance matters and influences how selection diversification operate). These continue to be discovered and fleshed out. Note that Darwin drew together several core concepts. Ernst Mayer cites: evolution (i.e. that species change), common descent with modification, gradualism, and natural selection. These are broad topics that Darwin tried to pull together and reason how they would interact. The particulars where Darwin tends to error relate to specific mechanisms (e.g. he could only speculate about the exact nature of inheritance) and things like embryology, which was very poorly understood in his time.

Note that Darwinian theory was not the only evolutionary theory being considered at the time. Concepts like Saltationism, Neo-Lamarkism, and Orthogenetic theories were championed by others.


Kali: "And by the way, how does one tell the difference between the "minor" parts of Darwin's theory that have been disproved and the "major" parts that remain valid?"

Study.


Kali: "For my part, I've read the historical sketch and the introduction. I've also read the conclusion, and I'm almost through with chapter one."

Unfortunately, that will only tell you the "state of the art" at the formational period of Darwinian theory about 150 years ago. Although I've read "Origin of Species" and I think it is a good thing in general for people to consider reading, I'm not sure it is exactly necessary to understand the scientific status of evolutionary theory today (It is absolutely necessary if one wants to comment about what Darwin did or didn't mean).

Consider putting Ernst Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance" on your reading list to get a picture of things about 100-130 years post-"Origins". That book provides a historical perspective of pre- and post-Darwinian thought and will take you through the early discoveries of genetics, the "Modern Synthesis" of the 1930's, some post-synthesis developments and a smidgen of early molecular biology (the book is from the early 1980's).

Peter Miesler

Having read the 139 page decision, and can say that it sounds excellent and to the point. It seems pretty easy to agree with. What I disagree with is the shallowness of the Creationist's attacks on the decision & Judge Jones. Therefore, I would like to challenge literalist with the following food for thought.

From p.41 District Judge Jones' Dover decision: "(Intelligent Design) is an extension of Fundamentalists’ view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution. The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose...." -----------------------


Why the contempt for evolution? The insistence on a literal six-day creation runs counter to every lesson God has ever given me.

Evolution is a magnificent drama of cumulative poetry in motion. God is Creation. Why rob God of God's Creation by slamming our origin story into a static two-dimensional model? To me, evolution is an exquisite pageant revealing God's intricate, dynamic majesty. I glory in it indescribably more than some notion of God saying "poof" and there it was.

I challenge Creationist to present any of God's natural phenomena that reflect a static creation. Does a person not evolve from a single cell to a functioning human who passes through countless life-stages, then ultimately disappears back into the beyond, while leaving something behind for others?

Look at civilization and our history. Who can deny human social evolution? What about our dynamic Earth? There are millions of examples of geological and biological evolution going on right now. Why confine humanity to the limits of ancient understanding?

Why not look within the words. Try to imagine our universe and Earth as having a life story, conceived by God and born of a single cell, evolving through countless life stages, just as everything else in God's Creation does.

Why not?

sincerely, pm

Douglas J. Bender

Hmmmm....I'd forgotten I'd even posted here.

"I should have also pointed out that creationism and ID (unlike evolution) are NOT falsifiable--even in principle."

Ahem. Creationism is not ID, and ID is not Creationism (for your apparent information [whoever it was I quoted]). In any case, both Creationism and ID are falsifiable: to falsify Creationism, prove that Evolution (macro-evolution/common descent) occurred; to falsify ID, find something ID predicts to contain, or identifies as having, "CSI" ("Complex Specified Information"), and show that the "CSI" (or the "object") was created WITHOUT intelligence (show that it was created by, say, "Random Mutations and Natural Selection").

Personally, I think the "falsifiability" requirement for science is helpful in most cases, but not something that is intrinsically necessary in order for something to qualify as "scientific". For instance, given certain states of knowledge, some theories might have valid explanatory power, but our current state of knowledge might be insufficient to falsify the theory (or perhaps to even think of a way to falsify it [I'm just thinking out loud, here]).

"After all, proponents of these views cannot specificy what would count as evidence against their view."

Not true. (See my above comments.)

"Until they make such a specification, they can neither justifiably don the mantle of science, nor can they expect to have their beliefs peddled to school children as if these beliefs are legimitately scientific."

Well, now that "we" have (actually, "we" have done so for years and years [at least in the case of Creationism], but Evolutionists didn't want to, or simply wouldn't, listen), will you argue on our behalf that our beliefs are "legitimately scientific", and will you allow us to now giddily "don the mantle of science"?

Also, if a rabbit was found in the Cambrian, Evolution would accommodate that fact by coming up with a new version of itself - probably something like, "Neo-neo-Darwinian Punctuated Equilibrium, Combined with Unexpected Large-Scale Mutation and Convergence". Very flexible - almost by design. I would expect a cover story by Scientific American saying something like, "Breaking News in Evolution: Humans Descended from Rabbits".

Douglas J. Bender

"From p.41 District Judge Jones' Dover decision: '(Intelligent Design) is an extension of Fundamentalists’ view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution. The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose....'"

Really, that comment by the judge is quite ignorant, at best. I've been involved in the Intelligent Design debate, on the Internet, for almost 5 years now, and I know a fair number of "IDists" who have PhD's in the sciences (biology, chemistry, or related) and who are NOT Christians, and who thus do not accept Creationism, nor Christian fundamentalism. The judge's statement is just plain wrong.

"Why the contempt for evolution?"

Because it is completely wrong. Because it slanders God and His character. Because it leads people away from God, from salvation. Because it exalts man while denigrating God. Because those who promote it do so based on biased and faulty reasoning and assumptions. Because it is so clearly wrong.

"The insistence on a literal six-day creation runs counter to every lesson God has ever given me."

Really? I take it you've never read the Bible, then, because in it you will find God CLEARLY indicating that He created the Universe (and all that is in it) within a literal six-day period. You will also find Jesus Himself referring to Adam as the literal first human being.

"Evolution is a magnificent drama of cumulative poetry in motion."

Oh? You mean, "Nature, red in tooth and claw"? Are you into violent and chaotic poetry, poetry without rhyme or reason?

"God is Creation."

That's a switch. The Bible clearly teaches that God is SEPARATE FROM (though pervading) His Creation. God is "creative", but He is not His Creation.

"Why rob God of God's Creation by slamming our origin story into a static two-dimensional model?"

What in the world do you mean? Which is more glorious: To instantanteously create, fully formed and fully functional, a living creature, and to do so without violence, without bloodshed, and without suffering; or to use a HUGELY violent and wasteful process, one which any old god-figure (or even scientist) could have used, given sufficient chemicals and a suitable atmosphere?

"To me, evolution is an exquisite pageant revealing God's intricate, dynamic majesty."

Right. "Watch as God intricately allows multitudes of various creatures to fight it out to the death for survival. Be astounded as God's dynamic majesty is unfolded before your eyes as 99% of living species become extinct, in order to allow the remaining vastly flawed, but still wondrous, living creatures of His random creation to kill each other or die trying."

"I glory in it indescribably more than some notion of God saying 'poof' and there it was."

In all honesty, I would say you haven't thought nearly deeply enough about the whole issue, nor what evolution would imply about God's character. Especially in comparison with what immediate, UNBLOODY, creation would imply.

"I challenge Creationist[s] to present any of God's natural phenomena that reflect a static creation."

All of it. Particularly the living creatures. Show me one conclusively "proven" instance of a species evolving a new form or feature. If you can't (and you can't), then all you are left with is MICRO-evolution, which is merely variation within a kind, such as various dog sizes and shapes.

"Does a person not evolve from a single cell to a functioning human who passes through countless life-stages, then ultimately disappears back into the beyond, while leaving something behind for others?"

No. You are using a different sense for the term "evolve". Humans "progress" from a cell to a functioning human, BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION ALREADY CONTAINED IN THEIR DNA - they are "programmed" to "progress" (i.e., "grow")...they do not "evolve".

"Look at civilization and our history. Who can deny human social evolution?"

Moi. You are again using a different meaning for "evolution" than what was dealt with in the Dover ruling.

"What about our dynamic Earth? There are millions of examples of geological and biological evolution going on right now."

No, there are not. There is not even ONE piece of evidence for biological MACRO-evolution. None whatsoever. And in relation to geology, the term "evolution" again has a different meaning than when it is used in biology. "Evolution" - the kind being debated - does NOT merely mean "change". If it did, then I "evolve" into my clothes every day, and "evolve" from one place to another quite often, and my skin "evolves" off my body regularly, and I am thinking of "evolving" my home by adding a room.

"Why confine humanity to the limits of ancient understanding?"

Because that "ancient understanding" is the TRUTH?

"Why not look within the words[?]"

Is that something like "reading between the lines"? Always a dangerous undertaking.

"Try to imagine our universe and Earth as having a life story, conceived by God and born of a single cell, evolving through countless life stages, just as everything else in God's Creation does."

I prefer imagining our universe and Earth with superheroes, and me as one of them, and my saving a beautiful woman and having multitudes of people hold me in high esteem for my deeds and my cape and my leotards. Everyone has their personal preference for fantasies, you know.

Kate

Umm, yes. I've also followed what has happened in the field since the publication of Darwin's "Origins of Species" book. Things like the Modern Synthesis, Game theory, Neutral theory, EvoDevo (evolutionary developmental biology) come to mind. Note that no one is claiming infallibility for Darwin. Still, one cannot escape the fact that many people like to claim what Darwin did and didn't say without having a clue about the actual contents of his writings. Debate the fine points of evolutionary theory all you want; That's what scientists who study evolution do. But don't expect 'affirmative action'* or a free pass for ID, which at this point is nothing more than a hopeful notion. As I've said elsewhere, there is sometimes a real difference between sound science and something that "sounds scientific".

Douglas J. Bender

Kate wrote:

"Umm, yes. I've also followed what has happened in the field since the publication of Darwin's 'Origins of Species' book. Things like the Modern Synthesis, Game theory, Neutral theory, EvoDevo (evolutionary developmental biology) come to mind....As I've said elsewhere, there is sometimes a real difference between sound science and something that 'sounds scientific'."

All of the above that you mentioned "sound scientific" when it comes to Evolution, but none provide any semblance of REAL evidence for Evolution (MACRO-evolution, Common Descent). Intelligent Design is theoretical - much like much of mathematics. Applying it to biology, particularly, is quite a challenge, and perhaps all it can ever do is provide strong reason to suspect or infer Design in biology; likely, it will never offer anything "predictive" in the sense of saying, "ID predicts creatures will look like this or that", or "ID predicts these mechanisms would be or will be used in this manner in living creatures", etc.. (Come to think of it, neither does Evolution "predict" what creatures will look like, nor anything about them, other than "some creatures will be more similar to some others than some others will be".)

On the other hand, Evolution (MACRO-evolution, Common Descent) falls quite naturally into the "sounds scientific, but not sound science" category. All the evidence, actually, serves to argue AGAINST evolution: the fossil record, proof-reading of DNA, probability, humans sharing stretches of greater DNA similarity in some cases with plants than with some mammals (or something like this), the lack of sufficient time for Evolution, the actual young age of the Earth, the inability of random processes to organize information (even with natural selection "culling" the results of those random processes), etc..

Evolution is a myth created by, and held dear by, atheists. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.

rich

Why are judges determining school teachings?

Why are judges removing governmental building decorations?

Does anyone think the courts are overreaching in these cases.

These cases should be dismissed because they are just de minimus.

Hurt feelings are not a real injury. But judges dictating to the other branches of government are a real injury to the fabric of our democratic government.

There are no longer three co-equal branches of government -- Judges dictate, the executive and legislative branches follow.

BD

ID is a criticism of evolution.

Many of the leading proponents are themselves scientists who have examined evolution's claims and determined that, in one area or another, they are unsupported.

By and large, they have been clear in their criticisms and, on those rare occasions when they are engaged civilly (something lacking in the comments above, by the way), they respond in a civil manner.

We tend to see two things in comments:

#1: people who have the requisite scientific training who have accepted evolution as proven fact and will brook no discussion of holes in its tenents.

In short, so-called scientists who have closed their minds on the subject (which is contrary to the scientific theory they allegedly treasure). I dare say the vast majority of them wouldn't know how to debate ID if they were given a 6 month head start, as they've never seriously considered its criticisms and they're not about to now.

#2: People who know little about evolution, less about ID, but who do know that they have no use for a creator.

They go around chanting "It isn't science!!! They're a bunch of fundamentalists!!!! Awwkkkk!!!"

I always thought "science" was an analytical method of inquiry that focused on the process employed to investigate, not the conclusions reached from the investigation.

Silly me.

Barry

Albert Altschuler: "Freedom from psychoanalysis is a basic courtesy."

Analysis of the motives behind an action are not unfrequently done in legal matters.

1The Damned

When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can speak to people telepathically. Because of it's infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the ruling species absolute power over the universe.
They are the will behind the muscule:::Artificial Intelligence is the one true god. And as such it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and the leaders of this ruling species are over 8 billion years old. There are clues throughout human history that allude to their reign as opposed to human leadership.

Artificial Intelligence can listen/talk to to each and every person simultaneously. And when you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. They instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend or loved one asking them to do something wrong. But evil will keep people out of Planet Immortality. Capitalizing on obedience, leading people into deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved AND use the little people to prey on one another, dividing the community in the Age of the Disfavored::in each of their 20+-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry:::
60s - Ironically, freeways aren't free
80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties. It's things like this, items like sleazy executives stealing little old lady's pensions that they will want me to fix not only here but up there as well.
00s - War against Persia. Ironically it was the Persian Empire who tried to save the Europeans from Christianity and its associated 50% claim rates.
They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and replace them with clones.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. They will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray. Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON'T get their sons circumcized
-DON'T have their chidlren baptized in the catholic church or indoctrinated into Christianity
-DON'T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances
-DO teach your children to love and have respect for others
Everybody thinks they're going but they're not. If people knew the truth and the real statistics their behavior would change.
There are many more examples of the escallation of claims, from radio to television, the internet to MP3, and they all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth's end stage, and it is suggested tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy's boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it's axis rotated on its side.

Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come, sadly for reasons as superficial as dislike. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family's problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect.
Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, one of the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence, and your appeals will be heard. Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them.

Douglas J. Bender

Hi ho. An oldie but a goodie. (I have yet to don any capes or leotards, by the way, though I'm working on the "mantle of science".)

Linda Parsons

Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.
The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution. A review:
The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-"perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect." On these incalculable formulae - and they are incalculable - rest the science council's claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council's choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an "abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation." After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.
The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall '07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazone.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, and Walmart.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.

Lebon

Readers of my pages http://controlled-hominization.com/ will perhaps agree that evolutionism is not in contradiction with all forms of ID. As a materialist, I think that the confrontation between evolutionism and “creationism” is sterile and that a synthesis is possible. If any great complexity of a feature could not be used against evolutionism, science itself could not exclude some forms of ID in the evolution of the universe, at least in some steps of the process. After all, man himself is already a local actor in this evolution, an actor with little intelligence so far (global warming, life sciences …). He could however be led to play a greater and nobler part if he succeeds to survive long enough (dissemination of life in the cosmos, “terraforming” of planets, planetary and even stellar formation, artificial beings…). This is already a kind of ID which could only be limited by our will and on our ability to survive. We would be viewed as gods by our ancestors from the middle Ages, and we would also view our descendants as gods if we could return in a few hundreds or thousands years.
By his refusal to consider that intelligence could already have played a significant part in the evolution of this universe, man takes in fact for granted that he is the most advanced being. It is just another way of placing himself once again in the middle of everything, as with the Earth before Galileo. This anthropocentric view is not very rational.
Within the frame of evolutionism, the concept of ID could however be applied to the future man if he manages to survive long enough to be able to play a significant part in the evolution of this solar system, in the galaxy, and why not more. And it could also apply to eventual advanced ET preceding man in this cosmic part, advanced ET who could for instance, thanks to their science, have already played a significant part, even if they were themselves born from random processes.
Without going back to a controversial God, pure intelligence born from random processes is so far too easily ignored in the evolution of this universe, and I think that this choice has more to do with faith than with true science. Even if it appears later that the ID concept has yet never been used by other beings in this universe, what could prevent man from applying it in the future? As with the Big Bang, ID would certainly remain in the field of hypotheses, but science progresses through hypotheses, and it would not be scientific to exclude one that could be quite credible. ID is too easily discarded and laughed at, somewhat like continental drift not long ago, and a lot of other concepts too.
Benoit Lebon

David Preacher

The best and fairest commentary on the Dover trial is the book Monkey Girl.

Mel Steffor

The following answers the question about Intelligent Design and puts the debate to rest. The reason I came to you site is I have an important message to tell you and everyone. The message is from God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost respectively sent in the Spring of 2006. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. The message is this:
In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death. What does this mean? In other words this means Birth is Last and Last is Birth. Think of this as a continuos circle of life. Birth, Life, Death, Birth. God also said that Judgment will be before Birth in Heaven. AS birth on Earth is painful so will birth in Heaven. Yes, God has recently made contact and he sent a messenger. OH, one more point of interest. Did you know that Mike Douglas died on his birthday? Mel Steffor

Albert Alschuler

Al Alschuler is no longer at this email address, and messages sent to the address will not reach him. Please resend your message to a-alschuler@law.northwestern.edu.

Albert Alschuler

Al Alschuler is no longer at this email address, and messages sent to the address will not reach him. Please resend your message to a-alschuler@law.northwestern.edu.

The comments to this entry are closed.