Pages

Monday, April 21, 2008

Why ID is not Creationism

With the relative success of Expelled, Intelligent Design is back in the news again. It is therefore perhaps a bit helpful to have a quick overview of some of the differences between Intelligent Design and Creationism.

First, I should note that we must define how we are using the term “Creationism” in this essay. Most atheists define the term as equivalent to Young Earth Creationism, but this is too narrow. On the other extreme, one could say that anyone who believes in any sort of creation would be a Creationist, but this is so broad that you could even fit Darwinists who believe in a naturalistic creation of the universe (via quantum mechanics at the Big Bang, or whatever) into the definition.

Instead of those two extremes, for the purposes of this essay I will define a Creationist as a Christian theist who believes that God created the world and all the various “kinds” of plants and animals in it at some point (YEC or OEC is irrelevant, and this definition allows for variations within kinds to stand). Note that this definition is very arbitrary. It excludes alternate religions, and would not include theistic evolutionists either (as the variations in kinds—which may include differences between such creatures as zebras and horses, wolves and dogs—are not significant enough to establish Darwinian descent of all species from a common ancestor). While some may disagree with this definition, it is useful to demonstrate the distinction between Intelligent Design advocates and Creationists in general, especially in American culture where Christian theism is the dominant alternative to Darwinism. In any case, the focus of this essay is more on Intelligent Design than it is on Creationism, so this definition of Creationism ought to be sufficient to establish the point clearly enough.

Virtually every atheist would like to link Intelligent Design with Creationism since the religious views of Creationists would legally exclude them from public schools. However, even some Creationists (as defined above) link themselves to Intelligent Design. Indeed, often it is only the ID advocates themselves who separate themselves from the Creationist view point. Speaking as a Creationist, this is dangerous for Creationism, and not just because it allows Darwinists to exclude ID without sufficient cause.

Consider this example. Suppose that the universe is 15 billion years old. Furthermore, suppose that Darwinism, as understood by Richard Dawkins, is entirely correct. Further suppose that there exists a star several hundred light years away from us that has a planet rather like Earth on it, where over the course of time, beings equivalent to humans evolved. Suppose this planet was formed ten billion years ago (when the universe was five billion years old), life evolved until these human-like creatures came into existence after another five billion years. By then, these human-like creatures had developed a flotilla and launched out into space to conduct a science experiment on another planet. They traveled for one billion years (nowhere near the speed of light) and found Earth, four billion years ago. Over the course of the next few billion years, this species of human-like creatures seeded life, introduced retroviruses to reprogram DNA, and shaped the flow of evolution until the year 1945 when, seeing an atomic bomb detonate to end World War II, the human-like species decided to get out of Dodge. As a result, by the time the space program ramped up, these guys were no longer watching the planet, having fled back toward their distant star system.

Now suppose that this just-so story is actually true. This would not fit Creationist accounts…but it would fit Intelligent Design accounts. In fact, one need only ask a simple question: if the above did occur, how would we set about to prove it?

This question is actually one that Darwinists never bother to consider, since they assume by default that such a thing could not have occurred. But the above just-so story represents no religious viewpoint, it is completely materialistic, and it assumes all Darwinistic theories. If it actually occurred, how would we be able to verify it? It’s a natural and materialistic occurrence, and if science has anything meaningful to say then it ought to be able to answer the question.

Firstly, we must note that since these intelligent human-like creatures left we cannot go up into space and see them now. They are gone, and for all intents and purposes no longer exist within our realm of observation.

Science does deal with this sort of thing all the time with sentient beings. You may observe a bear on a migration route one year and not on the next year and then again on the third year. That you did not see the bear the second year does not mean the bear did not exist that year. So when dealing with sentient beings, it is quite possible that they do not wish to be seen or happen to be somewhere other than where the observer is.

So how then would we try to determine whether they had been here or not? If we cannot currently observe them, then we look for artifacts. This is how we know that the Roman Empire existed, for instance: historical references and items recovered by archaeology. We excavate ruins and read old books to find evidence that they used to exist, etc.

But we’ve already said that these human-like creatures are scientists working to keep their experiment pristine. They would not want contamination to occur, because that would ruin everything for their experiment.

What is left to examine then? Can we conclude that it would be impossible to verify the existence of these creatures? No, for there is one other thing that we can look at.

These creatures were conducting their experiments on life itself. They were introducing retroviruses to change DNA to shape evolution, to grow a particular species. They seeded life on the planet in the first place. That means that what we look for is this: evidence that what is here cannot have arisen naturally, but instead can only be explained by the actions of an intelligent agent.

Because the intelligent agent was actually involved in the way life happened on Earth, things occurred on Earth that would not have occurred otherwise. If this story is true, then life cannot be the same as it would have been without these intelligent actors involved.

Now here is the key for the Darwinist to consider. If we are to say that science has no way of differentiating between the materialistic and naturalistic theory that I proposed above and Darwinism, how potent is science after all? That is, if science works, it ought to be able to differentiate between a world that is designed and a world that is not designed.

The ID proponent says that science can and does differentiate between what occurs naturally and what occurs due to intelligent agents. Oddly, for all its talk about the power of science, it is Darwinism that believes science to be impotent on this issue. But IDers have no problem saying that science is able to detect design, even when the designer is materialistic.

The designer need not be an omnipotent God. In fact, the designer need only be as intelligent as we currently are. After all, it is certainly within the realm of human intelligence to be able to create a space flotilla with its own self-contained farming system, to use atomic power to move us (at nowhere near the speed of light, mind you), to take enough people to keep the population going, and for us to use Darwinian theories to seed new life on another planet, introducing retroviruses when we wish to make alterations, etc. We could theoretically do these things and construct an intelligently designed world.

Suppose we did just that. That would not be Creationism. It would be Intelligent Design, but not Creationism. And that’s the major difference between ID and Creationism.

Creationism requires that the Intelligent Designer be God, specifically (as I’ve defined Creationism above) the God of the Bible. ID has no such requirement. The designer could just as easily be a human-like organism that evolved on a different planet six billion years ago who then traveled to our planet to seed life. Of course, IDers do not rule out the possibility that the designer is the Christian God; but He is not a requirement for Intelligent Design. Nor does ID have to identify the designer in order to be scientific: it is enough to show that some kind of design must have occurred (just as one can rule out natural causes for the death of the body in the hotel room without knowing who the murderer—the designer of the death—is).

This is why Creationists are libel to misstep with all the success of ID. If we allow ID to do all the heavy work without working out the issues ourselves, then we have not advanced Creationism at all. Even if ID utterly guts Darwinism, that would not prove the designer of our world is God. That ID is currently sympathetic with Creationists in no way implies that this relationship must always remain, and Creationists should be aware of this fact.

There is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. To use the dead body illustration yet again: Darwinists claim that Bob Jones died naturally; Creationists claim that Bob Jones was murdered by Jim Smith; and Intelligent Design advocates merely point out that some unnamed person killed Bob Jones. While there is overlap between the ID and Creationist accounts, it is a mistake (both on the part of the Darwinist and on the Creationist) to assume they are the same.

30 comments:

  1. Hello Pete,

    As a side note, there's a different tack that I've noticed taken by those who oppose ID is that some ID proponents in the past have formerly used the term "creationism" and then later switch the term to "ID". Philip Johnson is an example. I've also heard that the ID textbook Pandas used to refer to creationism but then replaced it with Intelligent Design. So the argument goes that this is an effort to cover up the supposedly creationist intentions of the ID movement. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It might also be helpful to deal with the charge of "God-of-the-gaps" argument.

    David Snoke wrote a paper on it here:

    http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/gaps.pdf

    Also, where is Steve? Is he studying for finals or something?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Peter for explaining the differences so clearly! I needed the clarification because I was probably conflating the two.

    Much appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Mathetes!

    I'm not sure on the ID textbook and whether it used to refer to "creationism" or not (honestly, I don't read much ID literature because I find most pro-Darwinian stuff so horrifically argued that I don't need to read the opposition to know it's wrong).

    In any case, it would depend on how "creationism" is defined in those contexts. If we define it to mean the belief that life on Earth does not have a natural explanation, then ID would fall under the term "creationism." However, that is not what is usually meant by the term (i.e., usually it is used pejoritavely to mean a fundy YEC).

    Finally, the tactic that ID = creationist front is itself merely an ad hominem attack, as if creationists are unable to do science. ID ought to be engaged on scientific levels, not at the level of rhetoric.



    Saint & Sinner, I'll look at your link later tonight :-) Usually the "God-of-the-gaps" charge is made by people who substitute it with the "Darwin-of-the-gaps" counter, so there's no actual improvement. Again, I'm saying this not having read the link yet.

    And I don't know where Steve is. (I could say, "Am I my Brother's keeper?" but then you might assume I killed him.) But it could have something to do with the end of the semester coming up.

    Or maybe he's a hockey fan and is consoling Patrick Chan since Chan's Ducks lost :-P

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't you effectively equate creationism and ID (that is equate the designer with God) by denying that intelligent, conscious life could not arise anywhere in the universe but for God's design? That your hypothetical could not possibly be the case because it presupposes something that is false.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Come on - don't be disingenuous. IDers are motivated by the desire to bring about Creationism in schools. Evolutionists are annoyed at this faux innocent protest "but we just want to postulate life as intelligently designed and that's all, honest!" I doubt any would disagree with your distinction.
    But this alien hypothesis is so absurd, no one on either side would take it seriously, which is why no one prior to you has used this as an argument for taking ID seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Come on - don't be disingenuous. IDers are motivated by the desire to bring about Creationism in schools."

    You have evidence for this assertion, I assume?

    Also, what about ID adherents like Michael Denton and David Berlinsky (among others) who are agnostics?

    ReplyDelete
  8. AMC said:
    ---
    Don't you effectively equate creationism and ID (that is equate the designer with God) by denying that intelligent, conscious life could not arise anywhere in the universe but for God's design?
    ---

    Creationists would equate the designer with God; IDers do not have to. For that matter, most IDers are fairly specific that they are dealing only with how life arose on Earth. We have no empirical evidence as to how life may or may not have arisen elsewhere.

    The point of the ID movement is that Darwinism is insufficent to explain what we see here on Earth. Since IDers are not seeking to prove that the designer is God, it is sufficient for the ID movement merely to say that something created life on Earth.

    But that something could easily have had a materialistic creation within the ID methodology. ID does not require one to believe that consciousness cannot arise from materialistic methods, or that life cannot arise from inorganic chemical reactions. There are actually many non-Creationist IDers out there.

    This is why I pointed out that ID is not Creationism. Creationism requires that the designer be God. And I do believe that there are valid philosophical arguments to demonstrate that the designer must be God; however, philosophical arguments are not scientific arguments (not that there's anything wrong with that since I don't buy the "science is the only way to know" fiction).

    So from the ID perspective, the illustration does not fail. However, you'll note that my illustration was predicated on the universe being 15 billion years and for Richard Dawkin's view of Darwinism to be accurate too. While I remain convinced that it is impossible to actually quantify the age of the universe, I most certainly can say that I totally disagree with Dawkins' view of Darwinism. Therefore, the analogy is built on premises that I do not believe in. But I do not have to believe in the premises of the analogy in order for the analogy to have fangs. That Darwinists do believe in those premises is sufficent, because my counter-proposal is perfectly consistent with their views.

    Thnuh said:
    ---
    Come on - don't be disingenuous. IDers are motivated by the desire to bring about Creationism in schools.
    ---

    No, most IDers could care less about Creationism. They purposely remove themselves from Creationism, as I've rightly pointed out they ought to do. It's you atheists and many Creationists who try to suck IDers into the Creationist fold, not them.

    But more importantly, if ID is true then shouldn't we want our children to learn it? Ought we not want our children to know as much truth as possible?

    Finally, as a Creationist I maintain that one does not need to teach Creationism to refute Darwinism. One need only teach logic (something that's no longer taught in school, mind you) and the full Darwinian theory. At which point every rational person would say: "That's an unsupported assertion, this is begging the question, that's a post hoc fallacy" and Darwinism would fall apart instantaneously. As I said before, I don't find the need to read much ID material because of how horrific the logical structure of Darwinists are. I read Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, etc. and say, "These guys can't agree on anything except the word 'Darwinism' even when they discuss the same experiments!"

    Studying Darwinism when it wasn't pre-packaged in the schools propoganda book (i.e. "Biology Textbook") proved the theory's fecal nature.

    Thnuh said:
    ---
    But this alien hypothesis is so absurd, no one on either side would take it seriously....
    ---

    Tell that to Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick (DNA fame, who not only believed in panspermia but DIRECTED panspermia), and to a limited extent folks like Paul Davies (who believes it "inevitable" that microbes have traveled between Mars and Earth).

    By the way, the reason that these scientists take the notion "seriously" is because the recognize what you cannot: Darwinianism cannot account for the life we see here on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter said:

    Or maybe he's a hockey fan and is consoling Patrick Chan since Chan's Ducks lost :-P

    That's it! You're going down, Pike! We didn't lose, we humbly and graciously allowed Dallas to win. ;-)

    Besides, it doesn't matter anyway, cuz Colorado ain't moving past the next round! ;-)

    (Actually, I wish hockey was the only thing I needed consolation on these days.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. As for Steve's whereabouts, last I heard he had flown his private Learjet to an unspecified locale in the Italian Alps for a rendez-vous with a couple of *ahem* snow bunnies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thnuhthnuh: Come on - don't be disingenuous. IDers are motivated by the desire to bring about Creationism in schools. Evolutionists are annoyed at this faux innocent protest "but we just want to postulate life as intelligently designed and that's all, honest!"

    Need to be careful with broad-brush strokes here, thnuhthnuh. What if I were to say, "Come on, don't be disingenuous. Neo-darwinists are motivated by a desire to increase atheism in society." Many neo-Darwinists would object mightily to my assertion that neo-Darwinian evolution is being used as a slippery slope wedge tool to inculcate atheism among the general populace.

    FWIW, given Peter's functional description of a creationist, I am a creationist. And I absolutely do support ID'ers and the effort to break the totalitarian grip that faith-based neo-Darwinism has upon the education system in America.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You have evidence for this assertion, I assume?

    It's like a form of Christian taqqiya. Of course no one will admit to it until they've succeeded. But let me ask you- why is Dembski trying to become a theologian? Or can anyone doubt Craig's motivations (he doesn't do ID but his presentations always have a teleological argument, and altar call tacked on at the end).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dembski's theological interests are irrelevant. No one's claiming that no ID adherents have religious commitments. The question at hand is whether ID requires religious commitment.

    The appeal to Craig equivocates, since ID does not claim to be a generic teleogical argument, but instead strives to provide empirical, testable evidence for design. So lumping Behe, Denton, Hunter et al in the same field as Craig and Ratzch commits a category error.

    As such, you believe in this grandiose conspiracy theory without any evidence to support it. Good thing you're not one of those superstitious fundies, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thuh is reminding me a bit of Umberger at the end of this clip. He's just laying on the ice going, "That wasn't the best move I could have made."

    Or in Thuh's case, he's going: "I better change the subject and hope no one realizes how pwned I got. I know, let's talk about Dembski's religious views to try to obscure the fact that I totally made up the no 'serious' scientist believes in panspermia claim!"

    At least Thuh is demonstrating he's able to completely ignore reality. It comes in handy if you're an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If ID and Creationism are so different then how come a creationist text book can be transformed into and ID textbook simply by substituting the words "Intelligent Design" for "creationist"?

    Thanks,

    Psi

    ReplyDelete
  16. Psi,

    It can't.

    Now would you care to actually address the arguments I presented?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. By the way, I'd like to point out that if you substitute "Jews" for "Animals" in the following Darwin quotes (see this link for the claimed quotes) then Darwin was obviously a Nazi. Therefore, Darwin = Hitler.

    ----

    "Jews, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal."

    And:

    "In the long history of humankind (and Jew kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed."

    And:

    "I fully subscribe to the judgement of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower Jew, the moral sense of conscience is by far the most important....It is the most noble of all the attributes of man."
    ----

    Naturally, simple word substitution is equivalent to the same ideology.

    By the way, I'd also like some details. As in, which textbook? When? Who wrote it? And how do you know what the original text was in the first place? Are you just making this up?

    ReplyDelete
  18. heheh, you should change your name to PETA Pike.

    And why should I believe an astrophysicist when he talks off his specialty about biology. Growing up in a culture where intentional design is so prevalent has this drawback - people are conditioned to assume design is there whether they're justified in doing so or not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thnuh asked:
    ---
    And why should I believe an astrophysicist when he talks off his specialty about biology
    ---

    Why should I believe you when you have no specialty at all?

    In any case, whom are you referring to? Crick? An astrophysicist discovered the double-helix nature of DNA? WHO KNEW!

    Or are you referring to Hoyle? Given panspermia involves interstellar travel of organisms, we should ignore everything he said. I mean, why do we need to concern ourselves with astronomers when it comes to space travel?

    Better leave it to Dawkins. You know, the guy who's done such amazing research studies as... um... that one. Um... Oh wait! He made his computer evolve insect-looking things (if by "insect-looking" you mean "after you celebrate 4/20 in Boulder").

    Yeah, let's take his word for it.

    I now propose Thnuh's Law on Everything:

    1) Thnuh's opinion is everything.

    2) Thnuh doesn't take X seriously.

    3) Therefore, anyone who takes X seriously is a "no one."

    4) Therefore, "No one take X seriously" is a valid proposal.

    5) X = everything.

    6) Thnuh's opinion = X (via 1 & 5)

    7) Therefore, "No one takes Thnuh's opinion seriously" is a valid proposal.

    Although I could propose a more parsimonious concept:

    1) Thnuh showed up to figure skate.

    2) Everyone else is playing hockey.

    3) Therefore, it is doubtful Thnuh will ever regain consciousness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Of panda's and people is the textbook that was creationist until the authors changed it to an intelligent design text book by substituting the words.

    See the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial for more details.

    It was the creationist owners who changed the words. This is the point I am making - it was not an internet blogger saying you could change one word in one sentence and trying to make a silly point. It was creationist authors of an entire text book who changed the word creation to the words intelligent design and who were also claiming that creationism and intelligent design are two different things.

    Any thoughts?

    Regards,

    Psi

    ReplyDelete
  21. Psi said:
    ---
    It was the creationist owners who changed the words. This is the point I am making - it was not an internet blogger saying you could change one word in one sentence and trying to make a silly point. It was creationist authors of an entire text book who changed the word creation to the words intelligent design and who were also claiming that creationism and intelligent design are two different things.
    ---

    In other words, what you are saying is that some creationist tried to link Creationism and ID, right? But how is that different from my point from the original post:
    ---
    ...even some Creationists (as defined above) link themselves to Intelligent Design.
    ---

    So at best (i.e., assuming everything for your benefit) your example shows that at least some Creationists equate Creationism with ID, which is something that I pointed out in my original post in the first place. So it is still not IDers who link ID with Creationism (again, as defined as Biblical Creationism) but rather some Creationists. And, as I pointed out, "Speaking as a Creationist, this is dangerous for Creationism...."

    Secondly, it is impossible to simply do a word switch and make Creationism become ID in a textbook. ID argument are different from Creationist arguments, even if there is some overlap. Simply switching the word being used is not sufficient; one must actually update the argument too. After all, as I pointed out above, ID doesn't have to prove the same thing as Creationism (Creationism would need to prove that God is the Designer, whereas ID doesn't need to give any identity at all to that Designer).

    This is why I used the Darwin quotes (assuming they're actually from Darwin, of course; I didn't vet the website I got it from) and did a substitution of "Animals" and "Jews." That a substitution like that would make Darwin appear to be writing an antisemetic screed does not mean his argumentation is identical to Nazi propoganda. And, in fact, if you looked at the quotes in fuller context, it would be easy to say, "This sentence doesn't flow correctly in the structure of the paragraph."

    Since this is the case, I reject your claim that there was just a simple word replacement. If this was a legitimate Creationist argument to begin with, and the words were changed, you would not end up with a legitimate ID argument. So if that is what was done, they are not actually representing ID. But if IDers say, "This is the ID argument" then either the original argument was not a Creationist argument, or else there was more editing than a simply word replacement.

    And if the arguments themselves are updated, I see no problem with the changes. If they accurately represent the ID position, then what does it matter where it comes from? Shouldn't the only thing that matters be whether or not they are true? Or do you reject the Law of Identity because it is written that God said, "I am that I am" and you don't want any pesky religious view presenting even truth that you agree with?

    ReplyDelete
  22. why are you even defending these people? You're right IDers are different. They don't support YEC, so they are liberal theologically. They are anathema to you. So why are you expending so much energy defending them? Are you a liberal? Or do you think they can be used as a springboard to teach creationism?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thnuh asked:
    ---
    why are you even defending these people?
    ---

    Who says I'm defending anything? I'm pointing out the difference between Creationism and ID, and that means accurately representing both positions. I can't help it if you atheists have such an inability to understand that which you disagree with that my simple clarifications appear to you as "support."

    Thnuh said:
    ---
    You're right IDers are different. They don't support YEC, so they are liberal theologically.
    ---

    That's a false distinction. I wouldn't call myself a YEC, and yet I'm not a liberal theologically. But of course you don't actually care about the truth of the matter, you just want to whine.

    Thnuh said:
    ---
    They are anathema to you.
    ---

    Except they're not

    Thnuh said:
    ---
    So why are you expending so much energy defending them? Are you a liberal? Or do you think they can be used as a springboard to teach creationism?
    ---

    Do you only present those two options because you're too dumb to grasp alternatives or because you're too ignorant to form a rational thought?

    ReplyDelete
  24. My point is that IDist's are a subset of creationists.

    Call them shy or call them crafty depending on your experience of them.

    Hi,

    So you take my point now?

    Here in the UK I have neither met, corresponded with nor read of any ID supporter who was not a creationist.

    Have you read the Wedge document? That actually spells all this out as a strategy.

    Regards,

    Psi

    ReplyDelete
  25. Psi said:
    ---
    My point is that IDist's are a subset of creationists.
    ---

    Actually, you've got it backwards. Creationism is a subset of ID. Again, Creationism is concerned with a specific Creator whereas ID isn't. The Designer in ID could be anything that is sufficient to enact the design, and that would include my above illustration of panspermia. In fact, every time someone develops a biosphere, they're engaged in intelligent design of life systems.

    Psi said:
    ---
    Here in the UK I have neither met, corresponded with nor read of any ID supporter who was not a creationist.
    ---

    Unless you haven't read much of anything, then you most certainly have read of ID supporters who are not Creationists. Michael Denton, for instance, is an agnostic.

    But your "argument" above is invalid anyway. It would be like me saying, "I've never met a Brit who could speak German, therefore no Brits speak German."

    Psi said:
    ---
    Have you read the Wedge document? That actually spells all this out as a strategy.
    ---

    Do you have quotes to back that up, or are you just reading talking points off Richard Dawkin's website?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I bet you love people like psi who make elementary logical fallacies - so you can allow this to confirm you in your beliefs. But that in itself is an ad-hominem fallacy. HTH.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Actually I love people who make elementary psychological profiling blunders like Thnuh.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi,

    Pointing out I am not aware of any ID supporters who are not creationists, that a creationist text book was changed into an ID text book just by changing "creation" into "ID" (yes we haven't had that addressed yet have we) is not a logical fallacy.

    Your comment is called the strawman logical fallacy.

    15 all?
    Claiming ID and creation are different things and later pointing out that instead of one being a subset of the other and not the other way around seems to indicate you have given up the original point you were making.

    Why not read the wedge document for yourself - it's from the disco tute - those folks who support ID but not creationism - because it has nothing to do with religion - here you go;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy


    It is difficult to see how you can so sure of your opinion when you seem to know little about the book "Panda's" the Kitzmiller trial evidence or the wedge document.

    Perhaps you can give us other pronouncements on things you very little about?

    ;-)

    Regards

    Psi

    ReplyDelete
  29. So just to spell it out;

    ID supporters are a subset of creationists.

    Regards,

    Psi

    ReplyDelete