The ID=Creationism Meme
by MikeGeneSince Nick Matzke has been back with his "ID=Creationism" talking point, I thought I would offer some one-stop shopping for those interested in this ID = Creationism meme. So bookmark this blog for future reference. After all, it’s free.
ID101 outlines the proper starting place for thinking about ID. You’ll notice that creationism is neither assumed nor concluded from such an approach. ID102 walks you through a specific example, clearly highlighting the fact that creationism is but one possible perspective that can exist within the larger teleological approach to biotic reality. The Birth of ID takes a historical look at the development of the modern ID concept. What we see are ideas that track back to Watson and Crick and express themselves in the context of the origin of life. Francis Collins and Intelligent Design outlines one way in which ID can be used to argue against creationism. The Creationist Fabrication outlines the way many critics employ the vague term 'creationist' in a way that is analogous to painting targets around arrows. Creationism and Propaganda effectively builds on this by documenting the propagandistic essence of the “ID = creationism” meme. Finally, Intelligent Design Creationism is the golden oldie that outlines many other problems with the ‘creationism’ label. Enjoy.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:54 pm |
"Creation Science" as espoused by the Creation Science Foundation cum Answers in Genesis centers around the claim that the opening chapters of Genesis are intended to be and are a literal account of the creation, specifically that the world with all its' biological 'kinds' were created in six days as in the narrative.
That is a different claim to either of the primary claims of ID that Irreduceable Complexity implies an intelligent cause, or that Specified Complexity implies an intelligent cause. It's just that simple. These are not the same claim. There is nothing 'stealth' about the latter claim, it just is the claim that it is and should be addressed as such.
Moreover nickmatzke's history conflicts with my own understanding and experience of ID, which went:
Michael Denton's Evolution: A theory in Crisis which inspired Phillip Johnson's Darwin On Trial and Mike Behe's Darwin's Black Box. These books in turn inspired Dembski's series of books around design inferences. Everything ID since then has really been footnotes to these works. Importantly, Behe, if I remember correctly, believes in universal common ancestry and Denton is a theistic-leaning agnostic, giving the lie to 'ID is what creationists did to avoid the constitution' meme.
Comment by BenK — February 25, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 6:27 am |
I think one of the issues is that many ID'ers use the same arguments that Creationists have been making for a long time. Anti-teleologists can't bring themselves to admit that even one criticism that the Creationists employed has been valid all along, and so try to lump ID into the "all-that-junk-was-discredited-long-ago" group, despite the fact that many if not most of the general teleological arguments from Creationists are more valid that previously supposed, and the argument has simply been "don't listen to Creationists they're stupid". Now that people who aren't Creationists are recognizing the same ideas, the only answer by the teleologists is "oh, well they must be Creationists". In fact, Eugenie Scott does this explicitly in her book (I apologize for not having the reference — it's been a long time since I read it). At one point, rather than refuting an argument, she merely mentions that it was an argument that Creationists have used, and therefore can be deemed invalid without investigation. In fact, anyone who uses any argument that a Creationist has previously used is considered a Creationist by Scott.
Comment by johnnyb — February 26, 2007 @ 6:27 am
February 27th, 2007 at 9:42 am |
Two-word rebuttal: cdesign proponentsists
Comment by K Klein — February 27, 2007 @ 9:42 am
February 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm |
Two-word rebuttal: Lookey here
Comment by Krauze — February 27, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm |
So according to the link you directed me to "intelligent design is just an overall category".
Dang. I thought it was supposed to be a scientific theory or something.
So let me ask - is "intelligent design" a big enough "overall category" that it could encompass, say, evolution?
Comment by K Klein — February 27, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm |
K Klein:
Sure. I think you'd find that most TT'ers - the bloggers - are 'evolutionists' in that we don't have much doubt that evolution of life has occurred. The issue is with the mechanisms, of which the NDS is notoriously short in the face of incoming evidence that things on the origin end aren't near as random as they'd dearly love to believe.
Comment by Joy — February 27, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm |
Hi Klein,
"I thought it was supposed to be a scientific theory or something."
Then you have been misled. Here at Telic Thoughts, we have long been open about the fact that there doesn't exist a theory of intelligent design yet.
"So let me ask - is "intelligent design" a big enough "overall category" that it could encompass, say, evolution?"
Certainly. It's called front-loaded evolution, and we have quite a few posts about it. Mike Gene's forthcoming book, The Design Matrix, will also have something to say about it.
Comment by Krauze — February 27, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm |
Dear Lord…. please read around TT before posting stuff like this.
Comment by Doug — February 27, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pm |
A decison moment for K Klein. Will he/she learn? Or will he/she cling to the stereotype?
Comment by MikeGene — February 27, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:20 pm |
Terms like "things on the origin end" and "front-loaded evolution" sure sound a lot like creationism to me. You may have discarded the 6,000 year old earth nonsense, but you still require that lot of magic poofing was involved.
Comment by K Klein — February 27, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm |
K Klein…. that word "poofing"…
you wouldn't happen to be Sign from somewhere else… would you?
Mike, if K Klein is who I think K Klein is, I believe he's here just "to have some fun". But hopefully to learn something in the process.
Comment by Doug — February 27, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:34 pm |
"front-loaded evolution" sure sound a lot like creationism to me.
I rest my case.
Comment by Krauze — February 27, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pm |
Looks like you spent a lot of time studying the references.
We try to be frank in our assessments of evidence for and against. There are standard explanations for the origin of life that have a magic feel to them.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 7:53 pm |
K Klein,
Speaking as someone from "your side" - I'd read a few of the posts here before you start treating it as a generic creationism vs evolution board. It isn't.
Comment by Mesk — February 27, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 9:12 pm |
If you guys are so frustrated by the association between traditional creationism and the Intelligent Design movement epitomized by nutbags like Paul Nelson, Bill Dembski, and Phil Johnson, then why don't you pick a new name for yourselves? At least then you have the benefit of controlling the meaning of your terms and of disassociating yourselves from discredited ideas.
Of course if you end up NOT being any different than the aforementioned nutbags, then it won't bode well for your credibility.
So, how about it? No more references to "Intelligent Design". From now on, it's "Telic Biology".
Comment by K Klein — February 27, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pm |
Hi K Klein,
I already addressed that.
Comment by MikeGene — February 27, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 9:27 pm |
K Klein you suck at the internet
Comment by Guts — February 27, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 9:48 pm |
Thank you for the pointer Mike.
It's your idea, so you can call it what you want I guess. However it looks pretty silly for you to complain that your ID is always being confused with and tarred with the same brush as that other kooky ID.
If I were cynical, I might say that it is almost as if you *don't* want to distance yourself from that other ID.
Comment by K Klein — February 27, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm |
If someone defies fantastically implausible odds against something happening by invoking the idea that we just got "lucky", is that really different from the famous blackboard step that read "then a miracle occurs"?
Recently in Science News, scientist Robert Shapiro wrote
Even Dawkins acknowledges that one cannot legitimately invoke chance without limit. A "lucky" poof can be a mask for nonsense.
Comment by eric — February 27, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 10:46 pm |
re "majic poofing"
The day that the major events of biology which currently have no scientific explanation are explained (such as first life, the cambrian explosion, and the bacterial flagellum for that matter) is the day that I will abandon my ID position. Until that day both the atelic and the telic positions call for a "majic poof", its just that the telic position admits it and the atelic position believes that the non-poof answer will be found tomorrow.
Comment by bFast — February 27, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 4:22 am |
K Klein,
"Nutbags"? Okay, for someone to address those individuals in that way indicates to me they aren't worth Internet time, and should be banned, as they will only muck up trouble (in the long run, at the least). "Nutbags".
Comment by Douglas — February 28, 2007 @ 4:22 am
February 28th, 2007 at 4:44 am |
Mmm, agreed. I'm not sure I think Dembski has quite hit the mark with his model of Specified Complexity but it's certainly heading in the right direction. Don't agree with everything he writes but wouldn't write him off as a 'nut' by any means. And he's certainly at the center of ID with his ideas. Similarly whilst I didn't find everything in Darwin on Trial convincing, there was a lot I thought insightful; I wouldn't call Johnson a nutbag and wouldn't try and distance my own thinking from him.
I'm actually not terribly interested in the question of common descent, but at this stage I'd call myself a telic evolutionist leaning towards front-loading.
Comment by BenK — February 28, 2007 @ 4:44 am
February 28th, 2007 at 5:02 am |
Hi K Klein,
You write:
It’s all a matter of perspective. I think it looks silly when the critics tar with the same brush. Most critics have a self-perception of practicing critical thinking while focusing on evidence and logic. Yet, again and again, they are ensnared by their own simplistic stereotypes. What does it say about a person when they simply cannot rise above the level of stereotypes and clichés? Or what about the person who is enslaved to stereotypes, conditioned by stereotypes, yet pompously proclaims they are “pro-science?”
In the end, I have provided reasons for sticking with “ID.” To date, those who insist on painting reality with their simplistic stereotypes have not shown my reasons to be unreasonable. Am I supposed to be impressed by the thinking skills of such people?
I can also add one more reason to stick with “ID.” You joined this thread with a “two-word rebuttal.” You might want to check out this blog. As you can see, not one person here was introduced to ID through this obscure text book. I would say that most were introduced to ID by the arguments outlined in the Michael Behe’s book.
Comment by MikeGene — February 28, 2007 @ 5:02 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:08 am |
And Mike Behe is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, which is the nexus and epitome of the "ID = creationism" meme that you so despise.
This isn't about anyone's thinking skills (who's the one with the simplistic stereotypes BTW). This is about distancing yourself from a political movement that has lost all credibility. For better or worse, the term Intelligent Design most accurately and commonly refers to the socio-political movement, not the broad-category-not-a-theory faction that you represent.
This is about clearly and distinctly communicating that you are different from that group. Every day that goes by that you refuse to do so is going to be perceived (rightly IMO) that you really *aren't* any different.
So if you don't want the albatross of "cdesign proponentists" hanging around your neck, you need to disassociate yourself from the movement that created it. The choice is yours.
Comment by K Klein — February 28, 2007 @ 9:08 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:18 am |
K Klein,
If you want to take a position against ID or telic processes please read through Mesks, Keiths, N.Matzkes posts at least then you can do it competently.
You help your cause like Hovind helps rationally minded religious folks.
Or as Guts said:
Comment by Doug — February 28, 2007 @ 9:18 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:25 am |
No sooner do I complete my post when I run across an example from the Templeton Foundation about how one goes about disassociating oneself from a movement with no credibility:
LA Times
Comment by K Klein — February 28, 2007 @ 9:25 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:29 am |
Hi Klein,
Have you disassociated yourself from Dawkins' labeling a religious upbringing as child abuse?
Comment by Krauze — February 28, 2007 @ 9:29 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:32 am |
I certainly don't go around calling myself a Dawkinsian.
Comment by K Klein — February 28, 2007 @ 9:32 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am |
These are talking points. Not very original and very stereotypical. If you want to debunk the idea that ID has rational points to make about scientific data, make your comments in a thread discussing such data.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 9:33 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:35 am |
So you go from the statement by the Templeton Foundation to make some broad claim of ID having no credibility.
Please do explain.
Comment by Doug — February 28, 2007 @ 9:35 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:42 am |
Does one need to call him/herself a Dawkinsian to adhere to some statements by Dawkins?
Comment by Doug — February 28, 2007 @ 9:42 am
February 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am |
Hi Klein,
What you call yourself doesn't matter. I call myself a front-loading evolutionist, but to you, that sounds like creationism. So when have you disassociated yourself from anti-ID "kooks"?
Comment by Krauze — February 28, 2007 @ 9:56 am
February 28th, 2007 at 10:12 am |
No, but if one *disagrees* with certain key ideas of Dawkins, one certainly wouldn't call oneself a Dawkinsian. Just for the record, I'm not a Pharyngulist either.
(and BTW y'all may refer to me as Mr. Klein, or El Kleinarino if you're not into the whole brevity thing..)
Comment by K Klein — February 28, 2007 @ 10:12 am
February 28th, 2007 at 11:21 am |
el kleinarino:
And why should we do that? It's fairly obvious that you have issues with the DI, which I would encourage you to take up with them. I do not have a problem with their existence or their ideas (or even their beliefs, to which they are entitled). So I've no reason to dissociate myself from them. I am NOT [edit to include this important qualifier] associated in the first place.
Your requirement [what we 'need to' do] comes with an implied "or else" that is not very impressive. "Or else" YOU won't take us seriously? So what?
Divide and conquer is a stale tactic. The current schism in the ranks of Darwin Defenders [DDs] is not of our doing - it's something y'all will have to work out as you will, either embracing the 'New Atheist' abandonment of science in favor of pure politicking, or rejecting it as non-representative. IOW, distance yourselves from the radical fringe. Or not. You could just ignore it. Doesn't matter to me.
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2007 @ 11:21 am
February 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pm |
Go. You. Big. Red. Fire. Engine.
Total bollocks. Abject, abject, nonsense. The claim that 'IC/SC imply intelligent cause' is just a different claim to the claim that 'The book is Genesis, read literally, is scientifically accurate.' Even if it were true that every single person who believed the former claim also believed the latter, they would be two different claims.
Ye gods, it's philosophy 101.
If you think that ID is a lunatic fringe, unworthy of consideration, then ignore it. But if you choose to engage with it there's no point telling us that ID=Young Earth Creationism. Those of us familiar with the claims of ID know that it isn't, and any thinking person not yet familiar will recognize the difference as soon as they come in contact with them. Either address the claims of ID or ignore them - as hominem is only convincing to bigots. And frankly the Darwinists can keep them.
Comment by BenK — February 28, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 6:59 am |
K Klein:
You make my point. What did I write?
I focus on the “arguments outlined in the book” and you can see nothing more than the DI. How telling.
Sure it is. The differences between ID and creationism are many and I have spelled them out to you. Yet you, being convinced they are the same, cannot see the differences or refuse to acknowledge them. Could this be the effect of being conditioned by stereotypes and propaganda? I’m curious – what is it like to take such a superficial, simple-minded approach to reality? Does it bring you some type of meaning or comfort? Do you find yourself easily manipulated by commercials on TV?
Comment by MikeGene — March 1, 2007 @ 6:59 am
March 1st, 2007 at 11:45 am |
I understand perfectly well what you mean by ID Mike, but you seem incapable of listening to someone who disagrees with you. Like it or not, the term ID has been co-opted by the socio-political movement comprised largely of creationists. In this sense, Matzke is exactly correct to promote the ID=creationism meme.
And let's not pretend that Mike Behe's *arguments* are somehow going to rescue your credibility. They suck (to put it in terms your readers seem fond of). You're writing here touting the failed arguments of a senior fellow of the main organization behind the ID=creationism meme and you expect everyone to believe that you are somehow different from them?
I understand you think you have good reasons for sticking with "ID", but I think you underestimate the negative impact the creationist association has on your credibility. You of course perceive this as horribly unfair and place the blame on the "stereotypes and propaganda" of the mainstream. Whereas I think the mainstream looks at your stubborn unwillingness to disassociate your ideas from the lunatic fringe and concludes, probably correctly, that you really don't *want* to disassociate yourself from them because, deep down, you *are* one of them.
You will deny this a thousand times over, I'm sure, but, as they say, actions speak louder than words.
Comment by K Klein — March 1, 2007 @ 11:45 am
March 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pm |
Mike is actually extremely patient with all types including trolls. You are factually in error. Some very strong criticism of ID comes from creationists as evidenced by the website Answers in Genesis and others. Their criticism is based on not touting God. They have separated from rather than coopted ID. Matzke's views are irrelevant.
The term "suck" is rarely used in this forum. You are no doubt more comfortable with the term. I gather you've located experimental evidence of IC systems evolving as contrasted with imaginative pathways?
There is no association except among anti-ID spinmeisters.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pm |
You don't have a clue what you are braying about. Why didn't you take Mesk's advice and read around here before you started posting.
If anyone is incapable of listening it's you. Mike addresses your points and all you do is regurgitate you same comment over again.
Klein, you say it over and over again that Behe's arguments are failures, but show it. Someone whining about failed arguments had better be able to show how all of his arguments (which you placed in asterisks as if to hint that they really weren't arguments at all…. and please, do explain that as well) have failed.
The exact same comment holds more water when directed at you.
For someone who claims to have been debating these topics on Delphi forums since 1999, Guts assessment is correct, you do suck at the internet.
Comment by Doug — March 1, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm |
El Kleinito is a good example of what occurs when IDists abandon the field. The extremistas come out from the other side.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm |
Bradford says "suck" is rarely used around here. Doug says I suck.
Bradford denies that ID is primarily a socio-political movement dominated by creationists. Doug denies that Behe's arguments have been widely debunked by the scientific community.
Doug thinks I'm some dude he met on Delphi in 1999. Bradford thinks I'm an "extemista", whatever that is.
The clowns are here, when does the circus start?
Comment by K Klein — March 1, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm |
Truth is worth more than your propaganda.
What Doug said was: "Klein, you say it over and over again that Behe's arguments are failures, but show it."
Klein, you are consistent in your inaccuracies or maybe you view that as the opening of your circus?
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm |
There's hope for K. Klein
Comment by Guts — March 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pm |
LMAO!
Comment by chunkdz — March 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 6:15 pm |
Joy
Yes indeed Joy, I refer to myself as an "ID evolutionist" however, when forced to operate as a physical-only scientist, I can become downright devolutionary.
—The Brookfield Theory of Devolution—
Extremely simple organisms such as myself (with only two and a half {2 1/2} moving parts and only three {3} functioning brain cells) are the end product of millions of years of Devolution. At long last, the age-old theological question as to how I could have become so simple — without the aid of God — has finally been answered.
SCIENCE has now found the REAL SOLUTION in the simple and elegant mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection (RM&NS). This is how it works. Random Mutation (RM) garburates (scrambles) genetic information — and then Natural Selection (NS) takes out the garbage. Thus, through millions of years of garbage-generation (by RM) and garbage-removal (by NS), massively complex organisms such as bacteria and amoebas have steadily devolved downward into increasingly simpler life forms such as myself.
Yet another question commonly asked by Darwinists and elegantly answered by my model is "how could you be so stupid and still survive?" The answer of course is that RM&NS "selects" for Survivable Stupidity (SS) while all Non-Survivable Stupidity (NSS) is removed by Selective Destruction (NS). Stupidity is of course a specific (neurological) form of simplicity. With RM&NS constantly scrambling/trashing/randomizing and then destroying (NS) all higher forms of complexity(such as brains), survivable stupidity is all that remains.
——
The driving force behind my Theory of Biological Devolution is the randomization function (R) that destroys genetic information (DNA coding).
"Randomness" is a uniform probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes. If your dice consistently rolls a "six" more (or less) often than the other numbers (other dice faces) then the distribution is non-uniform and subsequently non-random. "Information" on the other hand, is a highly coordinated, functionally specific sequence of "non-uniformities" (bits, bytes, codes, characters etc.,). "In-FORM-ation" is a highly complex type of "order" or "FORM." "Randomness" is the opposite of "order/form." Randomization subsequently destroys all types of order including genetic in-FORM-ation.
"Randomness" — by definition — cannot produce novelty. By "novelty" I am referring to NEW information, NEW designs or NEW species. "Randomness," is a uniform probability distribution. As soon as novelty occurs and the probability distribution is rendered non-uniform or "biased" (in favor of say, "sixes" on a dice or "jackpots" in slot machine) then specified novelty (order/form) has indeed occurred, but the distribution is no longer uniform and therefore no longer random. While randomness cannot produce specified novelty (by definition), active randomization (RM) is ideal as a destroyer of order and complex specified novelty (information).
My Information-density order-disorder continuum diagram can be found at ISCID. See — http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub... The base of the pyramid is drawn in dashed lines due to the resolution limit of the (digital) system under consideration. Randomness being uniform cannot be perfectly expressed in digital (I.E., non-uniform) systems.
The endless reproduction (of DNA code) provides additional devolution in the form of the inevitable random copying errors. With all of these destruction mechanisms in place, Brookfield Devolution is inevitable.
—-
By the way, I have never belonged to a religion in my entire life. For me, a religion free life is the only way to live.
Comment by William Brookfield — March 1, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 10:28 pm |
Hi K Klein,
Yes, it is easy to understand why someone like Matzke would be invested in promoting this stereotype. Nevertheless, it illustrates the fact that many people dismiss ID without really understanding what it is that they dismiss.
Note how you quickly fill in the gaps with your stereotypes, thinking that I was “touting” some argument. If you look back, I was responding to your appeal to Pandas, noting a) that no one here thinks it is an important ID book (in fact, most have not even seen it) and b) most here became interested in ID as a consequence of Behe’s arguments. You miss the fact that Behe promotes his views/arguments as one who is an evolutionist. He opened the door to considering design not as something that necessarily opposes evolution, but as something that can complement evolution. I wrote about this here.
There is good reason to think I have good reasons. I ended that post as follows: “Now, someone may not agree with my reasons. Fine. But what they would need to show is that my reasons are unreasonable.” And you have failed to show that my reasons are unreasonable. You simply tap-dance around the arguments while reciting your stereotype. You think I am a kook. So be it. What matters is that my position and arguments still stand.
Whether or not it is "unfair" does not matter, as that is not an angle I push. I have always focused instead on the implications that follow from so many otherwise smart critics whose thinking is shaped by stereotypes.
Right now, the “mainstream” is interested in Anna Nichole’s body and Brittany Spear’s haircut. So yes, I am out of the maintstream. But none of this matters. What you have built on is stereotype, slogan, and emotional perception. Your whole case crumbles when critical thinking is applied and the arguments are laid out. In other words, your position is front-loaded for collapse (it’s only a matter of time). Look at it this way. Say that K Klein tells B Stein that MikeGene is a creationist. Let’s say that B Stein believes K Klein. Sooner or later, B Stein reads some of MikeGene. Oh, oh. B. Stein is going to feel misled by K Klein. Valid arguments may travel slower than spin, but valid arguments have the staying power.
My credibility can only erode if I am truly an anti-evolutionist pretending to be an evolutionist. But I am not. Thus, it’s the meme-spreader whose credibility is at stake. It’s just a matter of time. In fact, you just gave me an idea. I think I might draw up a post that will solicit signatures from ID critics, getting them to go on record as giving this issue much thought and reaching the firm conclusion that Intelligent Design = Creationism.
I’ll bring it back up years from now. Are you willing to sign on?
[BTW, last time I tried something like this, only one critic was willing to fuse himself to such a position. I'd be happy to give it another go.]
Comment by MikeGene — March 1, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 am |
Comment by Doug — March 2, 2007 @ 10:23 am
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:28 am |
Is there a way to retrieve a post?
Comment by Doug — March 2, 2007 @ 10:28 am