Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution
THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY ^ | AUTUMN 2003 | William S. Harris and John H. Calvert

Posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:14 PM PDT by rob777

Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.

The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the

science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.

...

(Excerpt) Read more at intelligentdesignnetwork.org ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist; herewegoagain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-219 next last

1 posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:16 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rob777
Oh, goody. Another crevo thread.

I wonder what will make this one different from the other 9000.

2 posted on 09/13/2005 4:23:26 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
"Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination."

And here is the problem. "Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts, which evolution does quite nicely.

Intelligent design is philosophy---NOT science, despite the fact that it uses "scientific-sounding" language.

3 posted on 09/13/2005 4:23:32 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design.

Belief in God requires only faith.

Anyone who demands that science acquiese to their religious beliefs needs to work less on their science and more on their faith.

4 posted on 09/13/2005 4:23:37 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777

Liberals are living proof that the concept of Intelligent Design is a hoax...


5 posted on 09/13/2005 4:24:00 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions just the same as Intelligent Design or Creation.


6 posted on 09/13/2005 4:25:16 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts

How do you figure?
7 posted on 09/13/2005 4:26:37 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Ping

I'm not taking the time to read a 35-page document just to see if it is ping-worthy, particularly since this is inherently ID and not creationist. Therefore, I am not breaking out my ping list for this one.


8 posted on 09/13/2005 4:27:40 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions...

Nonsense. Evolution neither rules in nor rules out the existence of God.

Once again: true belief in God demands faith, not proof. Anyone who demands proof should examine why they even bother professing a belief in God.

9 posted on 09/13/2005 4:30:07 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Dave, still waiting to hear from you on the IDist response to the biogeography problem (a science problem, not a philosophical problem):

The biogeography problem (post #95)

The IDist trilemma with respect to the biogeography problem (post #98)

10 posted on 09/13/2005 4:35:50 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design.

Belief in God requires only faith.





Some of its proponents push the theory for reasons that have nothing to do with a belief in God. For them, it is the intellectual dissatisfaction with a purely naturalistic theory of the origins of the universe and the coming about of life as we know it. I do not understand why the "bogeyman" of religion always has to be invoked whenever one postulates that there is more at work here than
chance and physical laws. The "Teleological" argument is not based on a religious assumption, but a philosophical one. Religion relies on direct, experiencial revelation and does not need to speculate from an observed effect to an unseen cause.
11 posted on 09/13/2005 4:40:13 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

But here you are - just can't resist. lol


12 posted on 09/13/2005 4:43:14 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

It certainly rules out Genesis.


13 posted on 09/13/2005 4:44:30 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Snarks, could you try not to be bored so much? ;-)

I'm working on a large response to an unprecedented amount of responses to the rebuttal I authored. Be patient. It's one against thirty. The odds are to my liking. *Cracks knuckles*


14 posted on 09/13/2005 4:44:37 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Who designed the Designer? It's like asking what came before the Big Bang, after all.


15 posted on 09/13/2005 4:46:37 PM PDT by slightlyovertaxed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
"But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions..."

Nonsense. Evolution neither rules in nor rules out the existence of God.






Philosophical assumptions are not limited to speculating on the existence of God. Evolution "Theory" makes assumptions about the mechanisms of evolution that are historical and philosophical in nature, rather than merely empirical.
16 posted on 09/13/2005 4:50:30 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

(smile) I'll try to resist my nature a while longer, then, Dave. I'd say 'good luck', but you don't believe in luck...


17 posted on 09/13/2005 4:51:37 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: slightlyovertaxed

Look at it this way. It's easy to imagine God never ending (dying), right? Conversely, look at it as if God never had a beginning either. It is beyond human grasp, because everything we see had a genesis, but that is the way I look at it.


18 posted on 09/13/2005 4:56:45 PM PDT by Tim Long (Conservatism: It's the choice of a smart generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Wonder Warthog
And here is the problem. "Intelligent Design" simply meets none of the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. It is not capable of predicting or explaining new biological facts, which evolution does quite nicely.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of the hypothesis of intelligent design, your statement is demonstrably false.

For example, if your statement were correct, then it would have been impossible for humans to breed plants or animals. But of course humans have been able to breed plants and animals to meet specific "design criteria." In that realm we have literally thousands of examples where a) the explanation is intelligent design, and b) the predictive requirement is met by the fact that the breeders achieved their goals.

Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. The end result is bacteria or yeast that produce human insulin -- the predicted result, and again explained by intelligent design.

Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts. Further, the existence of design criteria (which were met in practice) satisfies the criterion of predictability.

Based on your criteria and actual examples, we must conclude that Intelligent Design is a valid theory. (The relevant sense of "valid" is 2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful [a valid theory] b : logically correct [a valid argument] [valid inference]).

Of course, to propose a valid hypothesis is not the same thing as verifying (i.e., to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of) that hypothesis. A person who puts forth an ID hypothesis is required to provide tests and data to support the claim.

At this point, however, we're faced not with a scientific problem, but rather a philosophical one.

If we apply your criteria more broadly, it seems to be the case that engineering in general does not meet your criteria for a scientific hypothesis. And perhaps that's accurate: engineering makes extensive use of scientific principles, but it is not possible to explain or predict the results of an engineering effort in the manner you're demanding for the development of life -- that is, using testable hypothesis about naturalistic processes. "Predictability" resides in the minds of the engineers, not in any fundamental natural processes. Moreover, the characteristics of an engineered object are often chosen for aesthetic as well as practical reasons.

The philosophical questions center around this disconnect between science and engineering.

20 posted on 09/13/2005 4:59:39 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
I wonder what will make this one different from the other 9000.

Maybe on this one some IDist will make a practicably testable prediction from their "theory." Alternatively maybe some IDist will admit that their "theory" is incapable of doing that and is therefore not science.

21 posted on 09/13/2005 5:05:14 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Tell or explain to me what and how science proves evolution. Give proof. Examples that will stand screening

If you believe that science proves evolution then you are intellectually dishonest.


22 posted on 09/13/2005 5:06:42 PM PDT by mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rob777

Intelligent Design is about as scientific as alchemy and the medicine show. HL Mencken, where are you when we need you to write about these Boobs?


23 posted on 09/13/2005 5:10:45 PM PDT by Clemenza (What's Puzzling You is Just the Nature of My Game)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mulligan
If you believe that science proves ANYTHING then you are intellectually dishonest.

Fixed it for you.

Simple facts: Science doe'nt deal in proofs. ID is'nt science.

24 posted on 09/13/2005 5:11:27 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tired_of_the_nonsense
Doesn't ID simply acknowledge the limits of science to date and say, look we don't really know how we got here, but given the complexity and profound probability of all these things coming together naturally to give rise to our environment, something bigger than us is at play?

No, sorry. CS/ID has clearly been developed to sneak religion into the classroom, where it is otherwise banned. Creationism lost at the Supreme Court level in the late 1980s, after which ID was invented. It claims to be a serious science without using any of the methods of science; in fact, every effort is made to destroy the scientific method enough that even ID can sneak in.

IDers even have to deny that their designer is the Hebrew god, which everyone can see is the case. I post alternative creation stories, but IDers can't stand them; they're the wrong religion!

CS/ID is thus based on a lie--denying the obvious religious connection while in fact the whole point of the effort is to force religion into the classroom. Its easy to document, just check out the various websites that advocate ID. You won't find the alternative creation stories I post. But you'll find lots of bible passages. Check it out!

25 posted on 09/13/2005 5:12:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

I don't think it has much to do with acquiescence to religious beliefs. There are some who take that tact but it doesn't accomplish much. Intelligent design or the theory of abrupt appearance whichever one is to take both make scientifically testable hypothesizes that attempt to step back from or extend standard evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory currently is built on a series of rather fragile and often contradictory ideas and is largely without credible proofs.

What has been proven is that micro-evolution occurs which is the ability of an organism to adapt based upon preexisting genetic variability. Something as basic as proving phylogeny such as from amphibians to reptiles has been largely based upon fantastic drawings in textbooks than scientific proof.
The fossil Seymouria is put forth as an example of a bridge but it is no less amphibian than any other amphibian futher more structural similiarity alone does not necessarily indicate phylogeny and with fossils we only have the merest structural remains. One other important fact is that reptiles were living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria. I think this illustrates a hopeless need to grasp even the faintest evidence as proof.

Regardless I think the debate concerning evolution is good for futhering science because it will force all involved to improve and refine their thinking because currently there are many content to live in a delusion that evolutionary theory is basically complete. I don't believe this and I think honest scientists know that we are just scraping the edge of what is the true complexity of the evolution of life on Earth and we will not make much progress posturing in our little hidey holes.


26 posted on 09/13/2005 5:12:30 PM PDT by Ma3lst0rm (Its turtles all the way down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"For example, if your statement were correct, then it would have been impossible for humans to breed plants or animals. But of course humans have been able to breed plants and animals to meet specific "design criteria." In that realm we have literally thousands of examples where a) the explanation is intelligent design, and b) the predictive requirement is met by the fact that the breeders achieved their goals."

"Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. The end result is bacteria or yeast that produce human insulin -- the predicted result, and again explained by intelligent design."

"Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts. Further, the existence of design criteria (which were met in practice) satisfies the criterion of predictability."

Strawman and "bait and switch" logic. A system DESIGNED BY HUMANS is fundamentally different from one supposedly designed by some nebulous entity. I'm talking about explaining "acts of nature", not "acts of man".

And there is no such animal as "existence of design criteria" in nature.

27 posted on 09/13/2005 5:13:15 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"How do you figure?"

So name all those current facts of biology that are explained successfully by "intelligent design" and not by evolution.

"The "Designer" dood it" isn't a scientific answer, but it is what the "intelligent design movement" ultimately boils down to.

28 posted on 09/13/2005 5:15:30 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions ...

I assume you're speaking of methodological naturalism. I suppose there is some very general sense in which this can be called a philosophy, but it more akin to, say, an Intuitionist demanding constructive proofs - it is a choice made because it is useful in some way. In the case of methodological naturalism, the utility is readily apparent - it works.

29 posted on 09/13/2005 5:15:33 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mulligan
"If you believe that science proves evolution then you are intellectually dishonest."

If you believe that science DOESN'T prove evolution than you don't know squat about science. Evolution is simply the best explanation of the observed facts of biology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, and many other fields of inquiry.

30 posted on 09/13/2005 5:21:55 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tired_of_the_nonsense
Doesn't ID simply acknowledge the limits of science to date and say, ... something bigger than us is at play?

No. They postulate that the gaps are filled by "intelligent design." That is different from saying that some specific scientific theory is incomplete or can not explain some particular phenomenon. Many scieintific theories are in that boat but, so far as I know, evolution isn't one of them. The most that could be said is that evolution *has not* (yet) explained some relevant phenomena.

31 posted on 09/13/2005 5:24:21 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

It doesn't matter if ID does have a religious agenda and some of it does as do some scientific studies have political agendas many of them secular and leftist. Saying that something is based wholly in religious conviction because it has a religious connection is logic begging to be put out of its misery. If this were the case any scientist that professed belief in a creator would be suspect, a class that would include greats such as Newton and Galileo. If indeed ID is baseless and evolution unassailable then it should be easy to disprove for someone who is truly as enlightened in evolutionary study as they claim to be.


32 posted on 09/13/2005 5:26:07 PM PDT by Ma3lst0rm ("God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." -Galileo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm
It doesn't matter if ID does have a religious agenda and some of it does

Thank you for the response.

The problem is that ID has had to hide the religious agenda, and falsely assume a scientific pose.

Creation science at least was honest about what it believed.

33 posted on 09/13/2005 5:30:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
Belief in God requires only faith.

With faith anything is possible. With science only the possible is possible.

Time to change my tag line. Everyone knows where Senator Boxer needs to go. :-)

34 posted on 09/13/2005 5:36:16 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (With faith anything is possible. With science only the possible is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions..

Please elaborate. Be specific.

35 posted on 09/13/2005 5:37:25 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (With faith anything is possible. With science only the possible is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; Wonder Warthog
Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. ... Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts.

You are confusing science and engineering. ID "theory" has no explanation of human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques. Feel free to prove me wrong by making a deductive argument from an assumption of design whose conclusion is human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques.

36 posted on 09/13/2005 5:41:38 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tired_of_the_nonsense
Doesn't ID simply acknowledge the limits of science to date ... \

No. ID attempts to limit science.

37 posted on 09/13/2005 5:41:55 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (With faith anything is possible. With science only the possible is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
I wonder what will make this one different from the other 9000.

It's not the destination, it's the journey. ;)

38 posted on 09/13/2005 5:43:35 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rob777

I guess my real question is, if ID is science, why do we get accused of religion bashing when we ridicule it?

Scientist ridicule each other's ideas on a regular basis. Does religion really want to throw it's hat into a ring where ideas are subject to constant attempts at disproof?


39 posted on 09/13/2005 5:48:26 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm

I don't think that ID can be disproven. It is always a possibility.

I have an object. How can you determine if it is designed just by looking at that object? This is the fundamental problem for Intelligent Design. Lots of people would assume a watch found on a beach is intelligently designed because it is too complex to have arisen naturally. But it isn't entirely the complexity of the watch that drives them to such a conclusion. Instead it is the lack of knowledge of any natural process that could have produced it, coupled with a gut feeling that no such natural process could exist.

However nature can create complex things. Stars are quite complex and weather systems are quite complex too. And we know that in the absense of natural processes to explain these things, people have assumed intelligent design.

And this is the difference between a watch on a beach and a shellfish on a beach. There is a suggested natural process for the origin of the shellfish, there is no such suggested natural process for the origin of watches.

So to really prove that an object is intelligently designed someone has to rule out all possible natural processes, even the ones they haven't yet thought of. An impossible challenge really. The best they can to is rule out all natural processes considered to date, and then what?

It seems to me that Intelligent Design is redundant as it is primarily about trying to test and disprove natural explainations. Scientists have already been doing this for hundreds of years without help from ID. Scientists are also always looking for new natural explainations for phenomena. But what would be the motivation for an ID scientist to seek out new natural explainations? I don't see any motivation to do so.


40 posted on 09/13/2005 5:51:52 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution

Scientific? ID? In the same sentence?

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Lolololololololololololololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!

41 posted on 09/13/2005 5:54:45 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm
Intelligent design or the theory of abrupt appearance whichever one is to take both make scientifically testable hypothesizes that attempt to step back from or extend standard evolutionary theory.

It's all a little too convenient...like the misguided "active principle" theory. It all goes up to a certain point and says, "Well, that was God's work! End of discussion!"

That is the antithesis of science.

And between you and me, I don't want Leftist union schoolteachers trying to explain the Divine in a science class. I've seen what those suckers have done with math. It ain't pretty.

42 posted on 09/13/2005 5:58:14 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Prime Choice
And between you and me, I don't want Leftist union schoolteachers trying to explain the Divine in a science class. I've seen what those suckers have done with math. It ain't pretty.

And reading! Don't forget reading!

44 posted on 09/13/2005 6:00:42 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

An "oh no, not another one" ping.


45 posted on 09/13/2005 6:01:38 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
And between you and me, I don't want Leftist union schoolteachers trying to explain the Divine in a science class. I've seen what those suckers have done with math. It ain't pretty.

Kinda like how the public schools teach biology. You don't have to go much farther than these threads to see that evolution isn't even taught.

46 posted on 09/13/2005 6:01:40 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: rob777

ID is not scientific. Here it is in a nutshell: "It's too complex, so God did it" (read: the Christian god, not Allah, Zeus, Odin, etc).


48 posted on 09/13/2005 6:06:41 PM PDT by JasonSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior

I ain't gonna ping for this thing. Unless you can convince me that this thread has some significance.


49 posted on 09/13/2005 6:07:13 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Discoveries attributable to the scientific method -- 100%; to creation science -- zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
It certainly rules out Genesis.

Nonsense.

Genesis is a wonderful story handed down by God and simplified by man's limited grasp of the Creation. If anything, science has upheld far more of the Genesis tale than you realize.

And God said, "Let there be Light." (Big bang)

God created Eve from Adam's rib. (Cloning with a remarkable on-the-fly alteration.)

...and that's just two off-the-cuff examples.

But if you wanna be closed-minded about it, that's your deal.

50 posted on 09/13/2005 6:12:19 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-219 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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