Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The evolving Darwin debate
WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter

Scientists urge 'academic freedom' to teach both sides of issue

Posted: March 24, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Julie Foster © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

In an effort to influence high-school science curriculum standards, more than 50 Ohio scientists issued a statement this week supporting academic freedom to teach arguments for and against Darwin's theory of evolution.

Released Wednesday, the statement was signed by 52 experts from a wide range of scientific disciplines, including entomology, toxicology, nuclear chemistry, engineering biochemistry and medicine. Some are employed in business, industry and research, but most teach at state and private universities. A third of the signatories are employed by Ohio State University.

The statement reads, in its entirety:

To enhance the effectiveness of Ohio science education, as scientists we affirm:

That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom;

That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science;

That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy;

That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them;

That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.

We oppose:

Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science;

The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.

Signatories released the statement as the Ohio State Board of Education works to update its curriculum standards, including those for high-school science classes, in accordance with a demand from the state legislature issued last year. Advocates of inclusion of evolution criticisms believe the Ohio scientists' statement echoes similar language in the recently passed federal education law, the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Report language interpreting the act explains that on controversial issues such as biological evolution, "the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."

As part of its efforts to update the science standards, the Board of Education held a moderated panel discussion on the question, "Should intelligent design be included in Ohio's science academic content standards?" The debate was conducted during the March 11 regular board meeting and included two panelists from each side of the issue, who were given 15 minutes each to present their arguments. One of the panelists in favor of including "intelligent design" arguments (the idea that biological origin was at least initiated by an intelligent force) was Dr. Stephen Meyer, a professor at Whitworth College in Washington state and fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

Meyer has written extensively on the subject, including a column for WorldNetDaily in which he criticizes the PBS series "Evolution." The series, he wrote, "rejects – even ridicules – traditional theistic religion because [religion] holds that God played an active (even discernible) role in the origin of life on earth."

Additionally, Meyer co-wrote a February 2001 Utah Law Review article defending the legality of presenting evolution criticism in schools. The article states in its conclusion that school boards or biology teachers should "take the initiative to teach, rather than suppress, the controversy as it exists in the scientific world," which is a "more open and more dialectical approach." The article also encourages school boards to defend "efforts to expand student access to evidence and information about this timely and compelling controversy."

Dr. Robert DiSilvestro, a professor at Ohio State and statement signatory, believes many pro-evolution scientists have not given Darwin's theory enough critical thought.

"As a scientist who has been following this debate closely, I think that a valid scientific challenge has been mounted to Darwinian orthodoxy on evolution. There are good scientific reasons to question many currently accepted ideas in this area," he said.

"The more this controversy rages, the more our colleagues start to investigate the scientific issues," commented DiSilvestro. "This has caused more scientists to publicly support our statement." He noted that several of the 52 scientists on the list had signed after last week's Board of Education panel discussion.

However, panelist Dr. Lawrence Krauss, chairman of Case Western Reserve University's physics department, said intelligent design is not science. ID proponents, he explained, are trying to redefine "science" and do not publish their work in peer-reviewed literature. In a January editorial published in The Plain Dealer, Krauss wrote that "the concept of 'intelligent design' is not introduced into science classes because it is not a scientific concept."

Promoters of ID bemoan "the fact that scientists confine their investigation to phenomena and ideas that can be experimentally investigated, and that science assumes that natural phenomena have natural causes," his editorial continues. "This is indeed how science operates, and if we are going to teach science, this is what we should teach." By its very nature, Krauss explains, science has limitations on what it can study, and to prove or disprove the existence of God does not fall into that sphere of study.

Krauss was disappointed in the Board of Education's decision to hold a panel discussion on the subject, saying the debate was not warranted since there is no evolution controversy in scientific circles.

"The debate, itself, was a victory for those promoting intelligent design," he said. "By pretending there's a controversy when there isn't, you're distorting reality."

But Meyer counters that a controversy does exist over the validity of Darwinian evolution, as evidenced by the growing number of scientists publicly acknowledging the theory's flaws. For example, 100 scientists, including professors from institutions such as M.I.T, Yale and Rice, issued a statement in September "questioning the creative power of natural selection," wrote Meyer in his WND column. But such criticism is rarely, if ever, reported by mainstream media outlets and establishment scientific publications, he maintains.

At the Board of Education's panel discussion, he proposed a compromise to mandating ID inclusion in science curriculum: Teach the controversy about Darwinism, including evidence for and against the theory of evolution. Also, he asked the board to make it clear that teachers are permitted to discuss other theories of biological origin, which Meyer believes is already legally established.

But such an agreement would only serve to compromise scientific research, according to Krauss. "It's not that it's inappropriate to discuss these ideas, just not in a science class," he concluded.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; educationnews; ohio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 961-964 next last
To: Dimensio
"You'll need to demonstrate that those text records are accurate."

Says who? You? Get a life... and I do mean literally.

God says they're accurate... you say they aren't... hmmmmm.... who to believe, right?

WRONG.

461 posted on 03/29/2002 10:27:57 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Gum: "You appear to reject science entirely."

Gar: Well, at least some of your powers of observation still function. :-)

So how is it you can accept the web, much less post to it? You must be posting without resorting to electricity because you say you've rejected science. Have you lived your life abjuring the advances of medical science, also? I'm impressed with anyone who can reach adulthood these days never having used penicillin or any of its derivatives, and who never needed surgery or dentistry. The odds are greatly against.

How's Pantagruel these days, by the way?

462 posted on 03/29/2002 10:34:36 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
"What evidence would prove that God did not create the universe and that God does not exist?"

Exactly! You're learning.


Are you saying that it cannot be disproven? If so then it's not a scientific claim; science can only deal with claims that are falsifiable. It isn't a problem of science that your God construct doesn't meet its criteria.
Note that this doesn't mean that your God doesn't exist -- it just means that your claims regarding God fall outside the realm of science.

The newcoming challengers (Evolutionary scientists) bear the responsibility for proving their novel sputum. It isn't as though the evolutionary scientists were here first, and then these religious interlopers came along trying to inject their radical ideas about Creation into the world. Creation happened before there were any people at all, and thousands of texts from Antiquity state this quite clearly.

The evolutionary scientists do attempt to support their theories with evidence, predictions, tests and observations. If you want to argue against what has been produced then do so.

And as to the fact of the existence of these ancient documents, your phony assertion that it is somehow my reference to them upon which their existence (or accuracy) relies is as absurd and pointless as are the rest of your gainsaying arguments... indeed, as pointless as is man's insistence upon believing in his own artificial and temporal "intelligence." It does not exist.

You asserted that the texts are accurate, and I can quote you on that -- don't deny it. The claim regarding the accuracy of the texts is yours, the burden of proof is on you (or anyone else making the same claim) that the texts are accurate. You can do this by demonstrating the accuracy of the claims within the text, in which case you would be vindicating both your position and the book's but to assert that you don't need to support anything because you didn't write the book is passing the buck: you assert the truth of the book, so show that your claims are accurate.
463 posted on 03/29/2002 10:34:56 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Those same text records (which you so callously dispute) predicted the "...scattering to the four corners of the Earth" the entire nation of Israel.

Hundreds of years later, it was scattered just as predicted by God's prophets in the Bible.

Those records predicted that the Nation of Israel would be again gathered together into the land God had given them, that they would be surrounded by their enemies, and that this new Israel would be "...a burdensome stone around the neck of all mankind."

Hundreds of years later, every single one of those prophesied predictions came true... to a tee.

Those same text records predicted that within a generation (40-60 years in the Bible) of the re-established Nation of Israel, there would be a re-unification of the Roman Empire.

The EU has now proven that prediction also to have been true.

This historical text upon which you spit has made thousands of predictions through the prophecy of God's elect, of which a handful remain to be fulfilled, and you say that I have to prove it's accuracy?

I do pray for your immortal soul. Try reading the ones that have yet to come true... it's a real eye-opener.

Or not.

464 posted on 03/29/2002 10:39:33 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
I'm not sure that it is necessary to be able to falsify a theory in order to establish its validity.  Mathematics has many theorems that cannot be proven true, they can only be proven to be not false.

In order to falsify it, however, merely take away or change one of the universal constants, and voila (a french word for "eureka").

However, ID is not so much a theory as it is a mechanism to attempt to explain phenomena that is not covered by evolutionary theory.  By itself, it does not condemn nor condone evolutionary theory.  However, it does, through empirical evidence, attempt to show that random chance itself is insufficient a mechanism to effect evolutionary change.  It does not try give an explanation by showing what is, but rather, what is not.
465 posted on 03/29/2002 10:41:40 AM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
"Have you lived your life abjuring the advances of medical science, also?"

Yes, I have. The medical records at Mass General Hospital will bear this out, by the way. I am alive today as a result of what medicine itself refers to as a MIRACLE. Thank you for asking.

466 posted on 03/29/2002 10:43:18 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
There's just one problem...

You've established that a few select phrophecies from the Bible have come to frutition. Some of them are hard to deny, such as Isreal being formed (though I've heard that many supporters of creating the nation did so specifical to fulfill Bible prophecy -- but that's little more than hearsay) and others are a little more loosely interpreted (who is the "Emperor" of the EU? What about the parts of the Empire outside of western Europe? Some claim that the Empire will be of ten nations, but there are currently twelve in membership.).

Those claims are substantiated by the observation of the claims being accurate. It does not, however automatically validate everything else in the Bible. That the nation of Isreal can be observed as existing does not prove that the creation account of Genesis is accurate, unless you can somehow show that they are directly related in the relationship of If A then B -- that is, If Isreal is reformed, then the Creation account if Genesis is accurate.
467 posted on 03/29/2002 10:47:53 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Gum: "Have you lived your life abjuring the advances of medical science, also?"

Gar: Yes, I have. The medical records at Mass General Hospital will bear this out[.]

Medical records!?!

468 posted on 03/29/2002 10:57:29 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"You've established that a few select phrophecies from the Bible have come to frutition."

You're experiencing a bad, dual case of verbal diarrhea and severe thought cramps, laddie.

I've used a couple of examples of the accuracy of the Bible out of the thousands which exist. Even if I were stupid enough to waste my time listing all the thousands of them for you, it would make you no smarter.

If you really want to know the facts surrounding your ignorant "opinion" of the Bible, read the Bible. If you do not, may God have mercy on your soul. (Here's a hint... He won't...)

Happy Easter! :-)

469 posted on 03/29/2002 11:04:19 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs, Dimensio
Christ is risen! He is risen INDEED!
470 posted on 03/29/2002 11:05:52 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
"Medical records!?!

Yes, imagine THAT!!! Hospitals actually keep records of their patients and the treatments they receive! Oh, the pure magic of it all, huh??!!

Golly....

471 posted on 03/29/2002 11:09:21 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
I'm not sure that it is necessary to be able to falsify a theory in order to establish its validity.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. A theory that's been falsified obviously isn't valid. This is what I mean: In order to be considered scientific, a theory must be capable of falsification. IOW, if any given theory is true, X will happen and Y won't. If we observe Y, then the theory has been falsified. But that's the important part. There are all sorts of ways to make a statement that isn't scientific appear to predict something. Think of "The sun rises because the rooster crows." It's the other part ... the part about what can't happen ... that makes it scientific.

Einstein proposed just such a test when he theorized that light was affected by gravity.

This happens to be science, by the way, so I suspect that the light Gargantua sees doesn't do this.

472 posted on 03/29/2002 11:09:58 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Gum: "Have you lived your life abjuring the advances of medical science, also?"

Gar: Yes, I have.

But you've been to the hospital, and they kept records of the event. Uh-huh.

473 posted on 03/29/2002 11:13:00 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; Dimensio
Hey, look at the bright side.

Satan thinks you have a real pretty mouth, and probably a real nice bum, too. Enjoy!

474 posted on 03/29/2002 11:21:00 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
I bow to the overwhelming logic of your posts.
475 posted on 03/29/2002 11:26:42 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
"But you've been to the hospital, and they kept records of the event. Uh-huh."

I was admitted by my parents, at age 4 months, with pneumonia. A couple weeks later they told my folks to come in and say "Good-bye" to their son, that I would not live until morning. One lung was full, and the other 3/4 full with staff infection.

I was still alive the next morning, and they took me to X-Ray for a look-see. Both lungs were completely clear, in 8 hours.

My tiny body didn't have enough tissue to have absorbed all of that infection, and I had not coughed it in my oxygen-tented bed. Medical Science had no treatment for my illness (this was 1950's), and no explanation for the miracle that saved my life.

Thanks for asking. Praise God.

476 posted on 03/29/2002 11:29:41 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
See, you must be a genius. Satan loves geniuses. You'll see.
477 posted on 03/29/2002 11:31:30 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
You must have missed the earlier postings. Kindly reveal to us where the Pope is off the beam.

His Holiness Pope John Paul II
TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
October 22, 1996

WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance.

During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.

A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae."

It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

Happy Easter to you!

478 posted on 03/29/2002 11:39:48 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
I see what you are saying.  The problem with ID is that we can prove it is not false.  This is not the same as saying it is true.  Thus as a theorem, it basically is true until proven otherwise.

Any experimental test that we can propose to do as humans to prove or disprove the validity of ID runs into the same problem that is inherent in using electron microscopes.  Any use of the Microscope to observe electrons, affects the outcome.

All I can say is that ID is capable of plugging holes naturally inherent in evolution.  Unfortunately, I know of now way of proving it true.  But the same can be said of evolution itself.  There is no way of proving it true (scientific method doesn't work), only of proving it not false.

So, if you take away the random chance basis of evolutionary orthodoxy and replace it with the directed intelligence basis of ID, you have a much more viable and plausible evolutionary theory than currently exists.  This doesn't make it necessarily correct, just better than it currently is.
479 posted on 03/29/2002 11:41:18 AM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Medical Science had no treatment for my illness (this was 1950's), and no explanation for the miracle that saved my life.

Argument from incredulity.

480 posted on 03/29/2002 11:42:03 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 961-964 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson