Home » Education, Intelligent Design, Science » Chuck Colson Discusses Dr. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” at Break Point

Chuck Colson Discusses Dr. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” at Break Point

Chuck Colson at Break Point discusses Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell:

In recent years, there have been several important books about intelligent design that go to the debate about evolution and the origins of life. Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference was first. Then along came Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, showing the irreducible complexity of the cell, which casts grave doubts on Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life and higher life forms.

Now we’ve got Signature in the Cell by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen Meyer…

But here is your takeaway, and I’ll let Dr. Meyer do the talking: “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment—always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

“Indeed,” Dr. Meyer concludes, “it follows that the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified, digitally encoded information in DNA is that it too had an intelligent source.”

No wonder most evolutionists refuse to debate intelligent design.

Thanks to Dr. Meyer, the debate about the origins of life is entering a new phase. Maybe we could say, for the chance theory of creation, that is, the writing is on the wall.

Indeed.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

55 Responses to Chuck Colson Discusses Dr. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell” at Break Point

  1. From the OP,

    “…from a mind and not a strictly material process.”

    What does this mean? Is the mind referred to here material/immaterial? Is it natural/supernatural?

  2. Evangelical Christian gives ID book a glowing review on an evangelical Christian website: dog bites man. Are there any reviews from objective scientists?

  3. Perfect…

    Comment number one goes for “supernatural” and comment number two goes for “christian”.

    All science so far!

    Perhaps someday the materialist ideologues will address the evidence straight up, but I have my well-supported doubts.

    Come on materialist, tell us about naturally occuring algorithms and chemicals coordinating symbol systems of information.

  4. @Learned Hand

    Much easier to dismiss it than to review it yourself, huh?

  5. Phinehas,

    I didn’t dismiss the book, I dismissed the review. Glowing, doctrinally-oriented reviews from laypeople give me no reason to think the book is of any interest to a reader who isn’t already a fellow traveler. The book is on my reading list, but this review doesn’t make me look forward to it.

  6. Learned Hand,

    “Are there any reviews from objective scientists?”

    LOL, name the objective scientists please. Is there an objective test to verify if scientists are objective?

    “I dismissed the review.”

    Of course you did but not based on the review itself. You used guilt by association to dismiss it. Do you also dismiss reviews by evolutionists as well?

  7. But how do we KNOW that coded information always has to arise from an intelligent source? Our own experience? In the great expanse of all of creation does our own pathetic experience enable us to draw conclusions based solely on our limited exposure? Or have I got it wrong again?

    I have always been amazed at how the Fibonnaci numbers come up in nature . . . does the number of spirals on a pine cone also imply an intelligent designer? I am asking seriously here. I really want to here what you all think.

  8. LOL, name the objective scientists please. Is there an objective test to verify if scientists are objective?

    No. But I’d settle for a review by someone who is (A) qualified in the field and (B) not already a creationist. The paucity of such reviews, and ideological conformity of the book’s boosters, suggest this will be another entry in the long list of books that get glowing reviews from a small circle of IDists, but make no impression at all on the outside world.

    Do you also dismiss reviews by evolutionists as well?

    Yes, when they are empty of any actual critique. A good book review is more than just cheerleading.

    ellazimm,

    But how do we KNOW that coded information always has to arise from an intelligent source?

    We don’t. It has to be assumed, inferred, and reiterated as an article of faith.

  9. “But how do we KNOW that coded information always has to arise from an intelligent source? Our own experience?”

    We don’t KNOW that.

    But you should ask the following question as well.

    Why should we conclude, contrary to our experience, that the most advanced form (correct me if I’m wrong!) of coded information arose from an unintelligent source?

  10. LearnedHand, I can understand why you would be weary of the source but the review needs to stand or fall on its own merits. You can freely critique the actual review or decide not to read it. I’d have no issue with that.

    If being an “IDist” is a problem, than consider that Stephen Meyer, the author of the book, is an IDist as well.

    How many books are written objectively? Which authors do not set out to try to prove an already decided point?

    I doubt you’ll find much pesonal objectivity anywhere in the origins debate. If you do, let me know!

  11. drawingtheline: I’m not concluding anything . . . I’m just trying to keep all the options open. And it seems to me that one option is: that it is possible that seeming design arose from non-intelligent sources. That nature driven cumulative adaptation acting on a base of random genetic mutation created the genetic diversity, adapted to particular niches, that we see today. It is a possibility. Yeah?

  12. LearnedHand, I can understand why you would be weary of the source but the review needs to stand or fall on its own merits.

    The review falls on its own merits. It is a short advertisement for the book, with no substantial discussion of its contents. It merely paraphrases Meyer’s arguments and quotes his conclusions. Nothing discusses the merits of the arguments, counterarguments, or makes any attempt to critically engage the substance of the book. To be fair, neither the author nor Mr. Hayden call the piece a “review.” Perhaps it’s unfair to judge it as if it were one.

    It is not significant if a single review comes from an ideologically biased source. It is significant if almost all the reviews are written by authors who share the book’s conclusions. It suggests, inter alia, that the book is not important enough to warrant the attention of anyone outside the author’s ideological enclave. Again, this may be an unfair criticism; I’d be surprised if there aren’t more substantial reviews out there in a month or so.

  13. LearnedHand,

    I agree with your assessment of that “review”. There’s not much there. This time, however, you actually critiqued the review.

    “It suggests, inter alia, that the book is not important enough to warrant the attention of anyone outside the author’s ideological enclave.”

    So your belief is then Signature in the Cell = important based on who decides to review it?

    First of all, there just MIGHT be a good reason it’s ignored by people with opposed ideological viewpoints.

    Secondly, it’s as easy to prematurely and incorrectly conclude they don’t write because they aren’t able to refute it.

    Lastly, the merits of Meyer’s arguments are not what is being considered here and frankly, the merits are ALL that matters.

  14. Currently reading Signature in the Cell. Meyer does an excellent (unbiased) historical review of what we now know about DNA. It’s a very very easy read with quite artistic yet simple illustrations to help understand what DNA actually is and how it works.

    The picture of George Johnson waving his little square black rock at the camera in his Bloggingheads comes to mind and I keep wondering “Does he even understand what information is and what it implies?”

  15. So your belief is then Signature in the Cell = important based on who decides to review it?

    No, my belief is that the reviews (and reviewers) are an indicator of its importance. Because my time to read books is a finite resource, I must rely on such indicators in determining what books are worth an investment, and which to prioritize.

    First of all, there just MIGHT be a good reason it’s ignored by people with opposed ideological viewpoints.

    Granted. Just as there just MIGHT be a reason that it’s lauded by those with the same ideological viewpoint. I therefore look for a diversity of reviewers. (In theory. In practice, one useful review can be enough to make me buy or pass on the book.)

    Secondly, it’s as easy to prematurely and incorrectly conclude they don’t write because they aren’t able to refute it.

    That could also explain why medical doctors don’t pay attention books by crystal healers. In both cases, it’s not a very likely explanation.

    Lastly, the merits of Meyer’s arguments are not what is being considered here and frankly, the merits are ALL that matters.

    I agree.

  16. “Granted. Just as there just MIGHT be a reason that it’s lauded by those with the same ideological viewpoint.”

    Of course there is and that’s the point. Bias is part of human nature and that’s why I find the objectivity challenge naïve as far as persons are concerned.

    “That could also explain why medical doctors don’t pay attention books by crystal healers. In both cases, it’s not a very likely explanation.”

    Notice I said “incorrectly” here. I was pointing out how useless it is to argue the merits of a book based on who does or does not review it.

    However, your analogy is pretty weak. Is Meyer a “crystal healer” and the anti-ID medical doctors? Meyer wrote the book in question so it’s hard not to conclude this way. I’ll let you finish this one.

  17. So LearnedHand, do I have this right? First assume, just for the sake of argument, that atheist ideologues really are trying to suppress a better scientific understanding that threatens their ideology. You seem to be saying that all they need to do to “win” with you is simply to ignore what the other side has to say? How would you be able to ascertain whether they are in fact blinded by ideology without considering what their opponents have to say? Do you let them do your thinking for you? If, for the sake of argument, you feel that you are unqualified to weigh the merits of Meyer’s arguments for yourself, then precisely what qualifies you to decide that the (potential) atheist ideologues are, themselves, trustworthy? Is it some new property of “freethought” to only listen to one side of an argument?

    Really, I’ve never understood the common attitude (thankfully, not yours) that says “I will not read such-and-such a book because I already know there is nothing good in there.” But, as I think you said above, Meyer’s book is on your reading list. I look forward to learning your thoughts once having read it.

    My own assessment is that the ideologues have said little against it, because there is little they can say against it, at least if they’re dealing with its actual contents and not some absurd caricature.

  18. If people really don’t like the design inference all they have to do is DEMONSTRATE that nature, operating freely can account for it (it being what it is we are investigating).

    We make scientific inferences based on our current state of knowldge.

    That said Intellignet Design is based on observation and experience.

    It can be objectively tested.

    The current theory of evolution does not enjot the same standard.

  19. Generally, ID theorists don’t argue that evolution is totally completely impossible. We just think it’s not the best explanation for the evidence, a point Meyer makes exquisitely clear.

  20. 20

    ellazmimm:

    In his book, Meyer offeres a comprehensive examination of information theory, natural forces, chemical physiodynamics, chance, and the probabilities involved to show the distinct differences between specified information, complex information, and functionally specified complex information.

    The question isn’t if it is impossible for natural forces to have done the job undirected, but if the capacity for doing the job lies so far outside of that probability bound that another explanation becomes the better explanation.

    In lieu of a known natural process that is at least theoretically capable (within the mathematical probability bound) of generating the FSCI known to exist in DNA, ID is the better theory, because only ID is known to produce such FSCI.

    If ID is dismissed as an appeal to the supernatural, then all science must be abandoned, because all of science is conducted via ID – the ID of humans.

    ID is not a theory of the supernatural. It is a theory about the extrapolation of a commodity known to exist, and known to produce certain kinds of phenomena (computers, space shuttles) to see if it is the best explanation for other phenomena that seems to be similar to these other things we know ID generates.

  21. 21

    I’ve been reading several of the comments here regarding reviewers of Meyer’s book. It appears that several are determined to avoid the book based on who or who has not reviewed it. Perhaps Chuck Colson is not the best review one should hope to receive for a book on science issues – but on the jacket and inside 1st page of the book, there are several scientists who have given their opinions. I realize that this is a way that publishers can promote the book, nevertheless, I think it’s significant some of those who did offer their positive regards to Meyer and his book.

    There’s:

    -Alestair Noble, PhD – chemistry – Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science – Scotland, (I guess he’s sort of Dawkins’ Scottish counterpart?)

    -Edward Peltzer, PhD – from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography

    -Phillip S. Skell, PhD from the NAS and Penn State,

    -Scott Turner, PhD – professor of forest biology – SUNY,

    -Steve Fuller, PhD – University of Warwick – Sociology of Science,

    -John C. Walton, PhD – professor of organic chemistry – University of St. Andrews, Scottland,

    -Norman C Nevin, MD – professor in medical genetics – Queen’s University, Belfast.

    There are several non-scientists who also gave positive comments. I realize that these are not reviews in the strictest sense, but one has to wonder why any self-respecting scientist would offer a positive comment to a book they felt promoted a pseudoscience. I don’t think that’s the case here. Several of these are very distinguished scientists in their field.

  22. Mr Murray,

    Hopefully the probabilities are accurate! :-) Does Dr Meyer also calculate the probability associated with an intelligent designer? What if both ID AND evolution are wrong?

    I’d still like hear more about where ID goes from there. When did the designer intervene? How? Why did the designer(s) design so many creatures/plants/systems that are extinct or no longer used? Why do men have nipples? Why is the Panda’s thumb so crude? Why do whales have the remnants of legs? It’s got to explain some things some time. Doesn’t it?

  23. Alestair Noble, PhD – chemistry – Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science – Scotland, (I guess he’s sort of Dawkins’ Scottish counterpart?)

    Hardly. Try Googling him. He got a degree in chemistry and became a chemistry teacher. He has worked for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Schools – Scotland as an inspector – part time I think. It is not clear whether he still does any work for HMIS. Now he seems to be mostly known for his religious work. I think the blurb writers are teetering on the edge of lying.

  24. Ah…yet another day and still the materialists refuse to actually address the observables.

    I see Mark Frank has made an appearance to throw yet another personality under the bus.

    In the face of not having a handy unused term of indignation, I suppose pity is in order.

    How it must drag on one’s air of enlightenment to come here knowing that you can never actually confront the evidence against you.

    (see comment 3)

  25. Matteo,

    So LearnedHand, do I have this right? First assume, just for the sake of argument, that atheist ideologues really are trying to suppress a better scientific understanding that threatens their ideology.

    All right—I’ll assume that the entire scientific community is running scared, and has collectively decided to ignore the dangerous radical whose amazing book totally destroys hundreds of years of science. Should I assume this decision was made in a secret meeting in a lair under a volcano, or individually by each cowardly evil atheist?

    You seem to be saying that all they need to do to “win” with you is simply to ignore what the other side has to say?

    No. I’m saying that this shadowy cabal, by ignoring Dr. Meyer’s book, can persuade people like me that it’s probably not a very important book before we read it. They can’t stop us from reading it anyway, and, if its ideas actually have merit, from attracting attention on those merits.

    How would you be able to ascertain whether they are in fact blinded by ideology without considering what their opponents have to say?

    By listening to those opponents. As I said, the book is still on my reading list, despite every indication that it’s another catalog of failed ID arguments.

    My own assessment is that the ideologues have said little against it, because there is little they can say against it, at least if they’re dealing with its actual contents and not some absurd caricature.

    This, of course, could be said by any crystal healer or UFOologist. The proof is in the pudding; if Dr. Meyer’s ideas are actually sound, we’ll see them gain momentum outside his ideological enclave. It hasn’t ever happened with any other ID book, and there’s no sign that it’s happening with this one, but it’s always possible.

    Cannuckian,

    Yes, you’re right to say that those are blurbs, not reviews. Moreover, they seem to be mostly, and perhaps entirely, from IDists. Is it any surprise that Steve Fuller gave a glowing blurb to an ID book? Or Phillip Skell? As I said, dog bites man.

    I don’t think that’s the case here. Several of these are very distinguished scientists in their field.

    None of their fields appear to be information theory or evolutionary biology. But I’ll grant that the community of ID-believing chemists, sociologists, MDs, forestry biologists and oceanographers is fully behind Dr. Meyer’s book.

  26. LH,

    ——”I didn’t dismiss the book, I dismissed the review. Glowing, doctrinally-oriented reviews from laypeople give me no reason to think the book is of any interest to a reader who isn’t already a fellow traveler. The book is on my reading list, but this review doesn’t make me look forward to it.”

    Nor does your doctrinally-oriented presumption give me any reason to think the book is not of any interest to a reader who is or isn’t already a fellow traveler. Goose, gander. And what does it mean to be a fellow traveler? Does it mean those interested in the origin of life? That’s all it could mean, unless you beg the question of dismissing that science because of your metaphysical prejudice. The same kind of prejudice, in effect, that you like to fault ID folks for having (which they don’t have, by the way).

  27. LH,

    ——”The proof is in the pudding; if Dr. Meyer’s ideas are actually sound, we’ll see them gain momentum outside his ideological enclave. It hasn’t ever happened with any other ID book, and there’s no sign that it’s happening with this one, but it’s always possible.”

    Do you have scientific proof of this? And you keep forgetting the world’s most notorious atheist turned deist Antony Flew based on ID findings.

  28. How about this, LH, (and EVERYONE ELSE WHO HASN’T READ IT) we’ll discuss the book after you’ve actually read it, cool? And that way we can stop all of this ridiculous arguing over motive mongering and get down to brass tacks of the science itself, deal?

  29. I’ve read the book and I find zero mention of positive experimental results that cut the very heart out of Meyer’s thesis.

    I propose an experiment – someone buy a copy of the book and remove every page that has an argument of the form “the experiment has not been done, therefore evolution NO!, therefore ID!”. I predict that the book will be much, much slimmer.

  30. Clive,

    Nor does your doctrinally-oriented presumption give me any reason to think the book is not of any interest to a reader who is or isn’t already a fellow traveler. Goose, gander.

    Lots of negatives in that sentence. Having untangled it, I’m still not really sure what your point is. Are you comparing my comments to Colson’s? I haven’t read or reviewed the book, or purported to do so, so what’s the similarity? I have only given you my reasons for believing that the book isn’t important; I don’t expect you to share that belief.

    And what does it mean to be a fellow traveler? Does it mean those interested in the origin of life? That’s all it could mean, unless you beg the question of dismissing that science because of your metaphysical prejudice.

    A “fellow traveler” is someone to shares the ideology of a specific group or movement without explicitly belonging to it. Here, it obviously refers to those who already share Meyer’s ideology. I don’t know why you think it could only mean “those interested in the origin of life.” There are lots of people who are “interested in the origin of life” who don’t share Dr. Meyer’s ideology. Pretty much all biologists, for example.

    Do you have scientific proof of this?

    If you don’t agree with me that ID will eventually triumph on its own merits, assuming it develops any, then how can ID ever triumph? Is the wedge necessary to get ID into the mainstream even if ID does have merit?

    And you keep forgetting the world’s most notorious atheist turned deist Antony Flew based on ID findings.

    No, I just find him irrelevant. I don’t see why the conversion of a philosopher, who is not conversant with the technical details underlying ID, really matters. People convert all the time, for better and worse reasons.

    Frankly, the fact that Flew’s conversion was atheist to believer strikes me as an indictment of ID on two grounds. First, he is essentially a layperson with regard to the technical merits of ID’s arguments. His conversion reminds us that ID can’t quite seem to gain any ground among experts in the field. Where are the evolutionary biologists being converted? The information scientists? Second, of course, Flew’s conversion was a religious conversion. ID will always have a hard time distancing itself from its religious assumptions, roots, and methods while it relies on the religious conversion of an atheist as one of its only success stories.

  31. 31

    “I think the blurb writers are teetering on the edge of lying.”

    Yes, well I fully expected such accusations from Darwinists when I posted the list. Not surpirsing. Pretty lame, but not surprising.

  32. #24

    Upright Biped

    I see Mark Frank has made an appearance to throw yet another personality under the bus.

    I have nothing against Alestair Noble and I am sure he does a great job. I was just reacting to the misleading description in the blurb and the idea that he was somehow a Scottish equivalent to Richard Dawkins. If someone argues that the credentials of the reviewers are a good reason for reading the book then it is surely reasonable to point out that those credentials have been misleadingly described?

  33. Re #30

    CannuckianYankee

    Yes, well I fully expected such accusations from Darwinists when I posted the list. Not surpirsing. Pretty lame, but not surprising.

    Why lame? Do you not think the description of Alestair Noble as “Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science – Scotland” when he is nothing of the kind, is rather misleading?

  34. MF #31

    My interest is in the evidence itself. If you’d like to react to something, why not react to that.

    “Come on materialist, tell us about naturally occuring algorithms and chemicals coordinating symbol systems of information.”

  35. #34

    My interest is in the evidence itself. If you’d like to react to something, why not react to that.

    It wasn’t me who raised the credentials of reviewers as a subject. If you object to this a subject take it up with CannuckianYankee.

  36. #35

    nice pass

    perhaps no one will notice

  37. #35

    “nice pass”

    Are you saying that it was not CannuckianYankee that raised the subject?

    Or is it somehow wrong of me to criticise a subject he raised?

  38. What am I saying?

    What I am saying I’ve already said clearly in the post that mentions your name:

    Ah…yet another day and still the materialists refuse to actually address the observables.

    I see Mark Frank has made an appearance to throw yet another personality under the bus.

    In the face of not having a handy unused term of indignation, I suppose pity is in order.

    How it must drag on one’s air of enlightenment to come here knowing that you can never actually confront the evidence against you.

    (see comment 3)

  39. #38

    So was it somehow wrong of me to criticise a subject that CannuckianYankee raised?

  40. Mark Frank,

    Focus. The subject you critize is not important. Only the evidence is important. Address the evidence.

    …tell us about naturally occuring algorithms and chemicals coordinating symbol systems of information

  41. Mark Frank,

    In all extant organisms, we find a physico-dynamically inert process of information at work. Yet, we are told that all phenomena are the result of purely physical processes.

    Put away the meaningless chatter, and give us your conceptualization of the preceding events. Reverse engineer the process by which we arrive at a physically inert information system.

  42. #40 and #41

    I repeat – was it somehow wrong of me to criticise a subject that CannuckianYankee raised? If it was “meaningless chatter” than was CannuckianYankee not more guilty for starting the conversation? Why would his discussion of the credentials of reviwers be less offensive than mine?

  43. Mark,

    I suppose you’re right. In science, chit chat over book reviews is not as hollow as ignoring the evidence.

  44. 44

    Mark Frank,

    I’m confused as to your perturbation. CannuckianYankee did not “raise” any subject, as it had already been raised up-thread (those suggesting that a review by some potentially lackluster critic had any bearing on the content of the book itself etc). CY simply provided a list of other endorsements to dispel the far-fetched notion of doubtful qualification.

    Why are you nitpicking over such a minor detail? It’s someone’s title listed in the front cover of a book.

  45. #44

    I am nitpicking because I am slightly irritated at being criticised for being a Darwinist avoiding discussing what really matters when all I did was participate in a discussion begun by ID proponents (whether it be CannuckianYankee or somewhere further up the blog). It is admittedly trivial.

  46. Mark,

    The conversation you came in on was started by fellow travelers Megan and Learned Hand in the first two posts of this thread. The vacancy of their responses was then challenged by me in the third post. You came in later offering tacit support of their pointless critique.

    As for being irritated, I do apologize. By all means, you are welcome to view my comments as nothing more than a mere demonstration of my point, rather than direct criticism of you.

    As an opponent regarding the book in question, I would like to cordially offer a simple piece of advice – a famous person once said “success is the greatest revenge”.

    Please feel free to challenge the evidence. Addressing my post at 41 would be a marvelous place to start.

  47. HouseStreetRoom,

    Since off topic comments are all the rage, may I ask; You have a most interesting moniker. Is there a story behind it?

  48. Please feel free to challenge the evidence. Addressing my post at 41 would be a marvelous place to start.

    I’ll bite.

    #41:

    In all extant organisms, we find a physico-dynamically inert process of information at work.

    In biology, there is no such thing as a “physico-dynamically inert process of information at work”.

    You’ve been reading too much Meyer and swallowing the koolaid way too willingly.

  49. 49

    Upright BiPed,

    Why certainly. “The House, The Room, The Street” is a song by the band Gentle Giant. It was the tune I happened to be listening to when I signed up with wordpress (creative, I know).

    Unfortunately, nothing really too interesting. I just love this kind of music. It has a particularly thrilling orchestration/guitar break a few minutes in. The song in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN7UK0leK0Q

    In the event that you hated that, sorry!

  50. CannuckianYankee: Never provide Darwinists with well-thought-out, nuanced assertion. They will exploit its reasonableness, ignore the context, and seize on the qualifier.

    Hence, when speaking to a Darwinist, if you say,

    “I realize that these are not reviews in the strictest sense,” [the nuanced qualification],

    “but one has to wonder why any self-respecting scientist would offer a positive comment to a book they felt promoted a pseudoscience. I don’t think that’s the case here. Several of these are very distinguished scientists in their field.” [the main theme and context]

    The Darwinist will acknowledge only the qualifier, ignore the point, and follow up this way:

    “Now that you have confessed that these are not official reviews, where do we go from here?” Meanwhile, your main point gets lost in the twilight zone.

  51. #41 Upright Biped

    I am always interested to discussion the evidence for various theories of evolution. My skills, for what they are worth, are in philosophy and statistics – not biology. So I tend to contribute to discussions about the nature of the evidence and the soundness of the argument from evidence to conclusion rather than discussing specifics which others know much more about.

    Having said that I cannot understand your paragraph:

    In all extant organisms, we find a physico-dynamically inert process of information at work. Yet, we are told that all phenomena are the result of purely physical processes.

    What is a “physico-dynamically inert process of information” and why should it be incompatible with physical processes?

  52. Art,

    As long as your brain is excreting the desire to come to UD, do you think you could get it to excete something of substance?

  53. House Street,

    I have expanded taste. Good stuff

  54. #54

    Thanks for the link. It is quite a long and dense paper and I do not have time to read it right now. Any chance of a precis in your own words?

Leave a Reply