Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UD PRO-DARWINISM ESSAY CHALLENGE

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad.

As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no.

Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside:

Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument.

This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog.

Zachriel’s response reminds me, all too strikingly, of the cogency of  what Philip Johnson had to say in reply to Lewontin’s claims in his NYRB article in January 1997:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original]We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
. . . .   The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

There is a serious matter on the table, to be addressed in the context that there is now a significant empirically grounded challenge to the claim that blind chance forces and mechanical necessity can account for the world of life. And, that reminds us to mention that the co-founder of the theory of evolution from 1869 on argued for intelligent evolution, specifically publishing his views at length in The World of Life. Which, is still a powerful argument that that world is “a manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.”

Hey, let’s add a vid:

[youtube hxvAVln6HLI]

For instance, here — with simplified paragraphing — is a comment in Wallace’s preface:

. . . the most prominent feature of my book is that I enter into a popular yet critical examination of those underlying fundamental problems which Darwin purposely excluded from his works as being beyond the scope of his enquiry.

Such are, the nature and causes of Life itself ; and more especially of its most fundamental and mysterious powers growth and reproduction. I first endeavour to show (in Chapter XIV.) by a care-ful consideration of the structure of the bird’s feather; of the marvellous transformations of the higher insects ; and, more especially of the highly elaborated wing-scales of the Lepidoptera (as easily accessible examples of what is going on in every part of the structure of every living thing), the absolute necessity for an organising and directive Life-Principle in order to account for the very possibility of these complex outgrowths.

I argue, that they necessarily imply first, a Creative Power, which so constituted matter as to render these marvels possible ; next, a directive Mind which is demanded at every step of what we term growth, and often look upon as so simple and natural a process as to require no explanation ; and, lastly, an ultimate Purpose, in the very existence of the whole vast life-world in all its long course of evolution throughout the eons of geological time.

This Purpose, which alone throws light on many of the mysteries of its mode of evolution, I hold to be the development of Man, the one crowning product of the whole cosmic process of  life-development ; the only being which can to some extent comprehend nature; which can perceive and trace out her modes of action ; which can appreciate the hidden forces and motions everywhere at work, and can deduce from them a supreme and over-ruling Mind as their necessary cause.

For those who accept some such view as I have indicated, I show (in Chapters XV. and XVI.) how strongly it is sup-ported and enforced by a long series of facts and co-relations which we can hardly look upon as all purely accidental coincidences. Such are the infinitely varied products of living things which serve man’s purposes and man’s alone not only by supplying his material wants, and by gratifying his higher tastes and emotions, but as rendering possible many of those advances in the arts and in science which we claim to be the highest proofs of his superiority to the brutes, as well as of his advancing civilisation.

From a consideration of these better-known facts I proceed (in Chapter XVII.) to an exposition of the mystery of cell-growth ; to a consideration of the elements in their special relation to the earth itself and to the life-world ; while in the last chapter I endeavour to show the purpose of that law of diversity which seems to pervade the whole material Universe.

In short, Darwin’s co-founder — and a man who was at least as learned on the substantial evidence as Darwin was — plainly argued at book length with copious evidence, that the evidence on the ground strongly points to design and purpose even within an evolutionary frame. Brushing the challenge off off by pointing to Darwin’s book, fails the giggle test.

So, here is the challenge, placed before the Darwinist (and similar), Blind Watchmaker Thesis objectors to design theory; especially those at TSZ:

The Smithsonian’s tree of life model, note the root in OOL

 

UD PRO-DARWINISM ESSAY CHALLENGE: Compose your summary case for darwinism (or any preferred variant that has at least some significant support in the professional literature, such as punctuated equlibria etc) in a fashion that is accessible to the non-technical reader — based on empirical evidence that warrants the inference to body plan level macroevolution — in up to say 6,000 words [a chapter in a serious paper is often about that long]. Outgoing links are welcome so long as they do not become the main point. That is, there must be a coherent essay, with

(i)an intro,
(ii) a thesis,
(iii) a structure of exposition,
(iv) presentation of empirical warrant that meets the inference to best current empirically grounded explanation [–> IBCE] test for scientific reconstructions of the remote past,
(v) a discussion and from that
(vi) a warranted conclusion.

Your primary objective should be to show in this way, per IBCE, why there is no need to infer to design from the root of the Darwinian tree of life — cf. Smithsonian discussion here —  on up (BTW, it will help to find a way to resolve the various divergent trees), on grounds that the Darwinist explanation, as extended to include OOL, is adequate to explain origin and diversification of the tree of life. A second objective of like level is to show how your thesis is further supported by such evidence as suffices to warrant the onward claim that is is credibly the true or approximately true explanation of origin and body-plan level diversification of life; on blind watchmaker style chance variation plus differential reproductive success, starting with some plausible pre-life circumstance.

It would be helpful if in that essay you would outline why alternatives such as design, are inferior on the evidence we face. [As an initial spark for thinking, contrast my own survey of origins science here on (note the onward resources page), the definition of design theory in the UD resources tab top of this and every UD page, the Weak Argument Correctives in the same tab, the general resources that pop up on clicking the tab itself, and the discussion of design theory in the NWE article here. You may also want to refer to the site of the IDEA Center, and the Discovery Institute CSC site as well as Mike Gene’s Telic Thoughts. Notice IDEA’s essay on the case for design here.] . . . .

I would put this up as an original post, with preliminary contextual remarks and an invitation to respond in the comments section.

I will not submit the post with a rebutting markup or make an immediate rebuttal. In fact, let me make the offer to hold off my own comments for at least five initial comments. I will give you two full days of comments before I post any full post level response; though others at UD will be free to respond in their own right.

And BTW, I am making this offer without consulting with the blog owner or others, I am sure they would welcome a serious response . . .  [NB: I have given how to contact me in the original Sept 23 post, I will not repeat that in a headlined original post.]

That challenge is on the table. In truth, it has always been implicitly on the table. For, as I went on to note on Sept 23:

Now, at any time, in essentially any thread at UD any serious and civil design theory objector could have submitted such an essay, breaking it up into a multi part comment if desired . . .

And, it is quite clear that if there were a cogent, empirically well-grounded blind watchmaker thesis account of the origins of the world of life, there would be no design theory movement in biology.

(There would still be a serious design argument in cosmology, but that is a different matter. That does, however, show that strictly speaking design theory has no need to make its case in the world of life; it is because of the blatant weight of the evidence that there is a design movement on phenomena in the world of life.)

So, there you have it, there is a challenge officially on the table.

Let us see if any of the many objectors to design theory at TSZ or elsewhere — I would even accept a parallel post and discussion here and at TSZ (though, no, I will not be commenting there if that is done) — will be willing to step up to the plate. END

Comments
And onward, here.kairosfocus
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
A full year today! Followed up here onwards.kairosfocus
September 23, 2013
September
09
Sep
23
23
2013
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
F/N: I just noted it is now past eleven months, with no cogent, substantial response. KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2013
August
08
Aug
29
29
2013
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
It is now over eight months since the free kick at goal UD Pro-Darwinism essay challenge was issued, and no serious takers. That continues to speak volumes on the actual degree of confidence Darwinist advocates have in their theory when it would have to stand up to open scrutiny.kairosfocus
May 25, 2013
May
05
May
25
25
2013
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
Tomorrow marks seven months without a serious answer. That speaks volumes on the actual evidence and confidence in that evidence absent question-begging a priori materialism, whether explicitly a worldview commitment, or as implicit in alleged neutral methodological imposition on science. Silence sometimes speaks volumes.kairosfocus
April 22, 2013
April
04
Apr
22
22
2013
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Five months and counting on this 6,000 word essay challenge. Maybe, Petrshka's submission will be complete soon. KFkairosfocus
February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
F/N: Let me comment briefly on some accusations, assertions and claims I am seeing in trying to track down what was going on: 1 --> Re CR: it is not "censorship" to require that someone who has made serious false accusations resolve the matter in a civil fashion as a condition of being further entertained in a civil discussion. It seems that there is an assumption on the other side that they can resort to any and every dirty tactic and we must meekly go along with that. Sorry, the first criterion of civil discussion is civility. 2 --> In this context CR and others have now compounded earlier false accusations and have a further false accusation to resolve, of alleged "censorship," when they KNOW that the actual issue on the table is civility on their part. That TSZ has entertained this behaviour without correcting it, is also indicative of the major problems with that site. That is, it is enabling of incivility. 3 --> There has been much allusion to a claimed demonstration of the superiority of blind watchmaker evo [BWE] as an explanation over design. The only problem is, that it is all circular as it has not warranted per observationally anchored empirical demonstration, that BWE can (a) get off the ground -- OOL, and (b) that BWE is capable of generating FSCO/I. 4 --> This should suffice to show why I am insisting on seriously answering a and b in the essay challenge answer. And, on the every tub must stand on its own bottom principle.
(I wonder, is the death of training in Geometry in the classical tradition from Euclid a part of what we are seeing, as it seems that too many do not have a clue what deductive warrant entails? Similarly, is there a problem where people do not understand the strengths and limitations of inductive investigations, reasoning and explanations that lead to the strengths and limitations of scientific reasoning? Why then is there such a hot opposition to attempts to introduce exposure to the strengths and limitations of science methods in school curricula, often multiplied by false accusations of trying to inject "creationism"? Could this be a clue that those who make such assertions and accusations understand deep down that there are such limitations as would lead a normal person to infer that the BWE and chem evo OOL claims would collapse of their own weaknesses if they were cogently evaluated in light of an objective assessment on the nature of inductive reasoning? If so, why the resort to that which is implicitly, indoctrination in a doctrine of origins under false colours of certainty and fact?)
5 --> Where, by contrast, design has been abundantly shown to be causally adequate to account for FSCO/I, with a world of technologies and objects around us in evidence; and to date it is the only known causally adequate source of FSCO/I. That is, we are dealing with inference to best current explanation, on empirically tested sign. 6 --> There are several appeals to the true origins site, and to a series on 29 evidences of macroevo. The problems with Talk Origins as a site notorious for rhetorical manipulation are being ducked, and the essential problems with any macro evo blind watchmaker account absent demonstration of origin of FSCO/I by blind chance and mechanical necessity, are already outlined. In addition, we may look at the critique of the Theobald claims here, by Camp. 7 --> As one key point, observe the opening page of Theobald on his 29 evidences as linked: Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life).
Q: Why is the root of the whole tree so conveniently left off? A: because there is no good empirical warrant for the claimed spontaneous origin of life in some chemical stew or other, and as a result apart from misleading icons, it is in a lot of trouble on the scientific merits. In addition, it is a capital illustration of the origin of FSCO/I, and of the failure to provide a viable blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanism. Where, ever since 1984, OOL has been the pivot of inferring design as credible best explanation of cell based life on the issue of origin of FSCO/I in light of empirically credible best explanation. Where also, once we see design as best explanation at this level, there is no good reason to lock out design onwards. That is, we here see a major begging of the question at stake in the teeth of knowing that this is the pivotal issue on the other side of the question. [Cf discussion of OOL at 101 level here on. Also, on OO body plans here on, including Gould's remarks on the fossil record that is often alleged to show directly the universal common descent by BWE, here on in context, including of course the Cambrian revo as a capital illustration -- never mind the dismissive remarks.]
8 --> As a second point, observe the following categorical blunder, on that same page:
universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists.
9 --> The main rhetorical lever here is that "only fools dispute facts," and it is multiplied by a subtle no true scotsman [biologist] claim to collective authority. 10 --> Sorry, absent time travel, there is no possibility of actually observing directly the real remote past of life on earth. So, we are examining traces of the past and are seeking a "best explanation" in light of causal factors in the present observed to give similar results to a sufficient degree of closeness that we can identify empirically reliable signs and then infer per best explanation the credible causes. (Notice, how analogy gets embedded in inductive reasoning here. One of many ways this happens.) 11 --> Micro evo, as it is called, does not cross the FSCO/I body plan origin threshold, and is therefore not sufficiently parallel to properly conclude that the mechanism for the one is sufficient for the other. And, there is no observed case of origin of the required FSCO/I by accumulated micro evo etc, instead the only empirically known cause of FSCO/I is design. 12 --> So, what is happening is that big questions are being begged and on the false credit of institutional authority, so that something is being called a fact that is not. Patently, an inferred or claimed best explanation -- even if FSCO/I had been warranted on empirical evidence, to come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity -- would not be a fact in any proper sense. Scientific theories or models are explanatory constructs and on the history of science are inherently subject to overthrow in light of further evidence. Just ask the physicists on that. That is the category error involved. 13 --> So, this assertion (which is pivotal in Theobald) is all too clearly a blunder:
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent [in context, on blind watchmaker mechanisms] can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences
14 --> Instead, what is at the logically fallacious root of this false and unfounded perception of certainty has been highlighted by Johnson:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
_____________ It should be clear as to why I am insisting that every tub must stand on its own bottom, and that claimed mechanisms of the past or explanations of the past must pass the test of causal adequacy relative to key traces, and further showing that the signs in question are able to distinguish candidates without begging questions. KF PS: I again note that I have outlined how design can answer to the issues, here on at 101 level. In particular I there show why I confidently say that FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of design as credible cause.kairosfocus
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Mung Thanks for keeping track of the antics of those who are playing manipulative rhetorical games with the Darwinism essay challenge out there. Looks like here we have an attempt by KS to personally attack while ducking the actual challenge on the table here. This also therefore is a case of speaking on KS's part with disregard to the truth while hoping to profit by what is said being perceived as true. (FYI, KS et al, I have just given a definition -- courtesy Wikipedia -- of a sort of behaviour that has a short little three letter word that provides a label for such behaviour. Begins with the same letter as "label," too. It so happens that in this context, there comes a point where selective hyperskspicism often resorts to willfully false narratives, and false accusations, thus coming within the ambit of that definition.) KS knows or should know that I plainly asked that the proposed solution be notified to me, which obviously can be done at UD or through the contact mechanism noted in the OP above. Indeed, I pointed out that a submission could in principle be done at any time in essentially any UD thread of significance, by simply posting comments. Since Sept 23rd 2012, routinely checking my inbox day by day [over FOUR months now], I have received no submission of an essay, no notification of posting with a link, of any attempted essay that provides a roughly [and that is to be generously interpreted] 6,000 word essay that meets the criteria above. I have duly noted that Petrushka seems to have been working on an attempt for some time now. Attempts to attack ID as inferior to Darwinism -- which reliably fail (there is a demonstrable methodological equivalence challenge that shows that you cannot consistently object to the design inference and retain the Darwinist inference without contradicting yourself methodologically) -- obviously do not count per the each tub must stand on its own bottom principle. KS has evidently ducked this principle of providing positive warrant for his own case and has resorted to personal attacks. THIS SEEMS TO BE PAR FOR THE COURSE FOR TOO MANY OBJECTORS TO THE DESIGN INFERENCE. Sad, and sadly revealing. I continue to await the essay by Petrushka, who has at least indicated that she is attempting to write an essay. And, no, I am not scanning the Darwinist fever swamps day by day then returning to the shower to flush off the muck, to find out if somewhere out there someone has put forth an answer. Those who seriously wish to answer know just how to contact or communicate through UD or more directly. FOUR months and counting . . . KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
keiths:
It’s now December 23rd. I responded to your challenge long ago. Why are you afraid to respond to mine?
lolMung
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
And keiths' post was refuted on October 8th and subsequent days.Joe
January 25, 2013
January
01
Jan
25
25
2013
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
keiths:
KF, I responded to your challenge on October 8th, and issued a counter-challenge on October 16th
Mung
January 24, 2013
January
01
Jan
24
24
2013
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Mung: First, the offer has been that I would host such an essay, which would allow any person regardless of history at UD, to contribute an essay. I have specifically offered the suggestion that the essay could be cross-posted elsewhere, which I would be prepared to link to. I would even be willing to clip an essay primarily posted elsewhere. I do not control UD's moderation or banning -- though I have seen across time that as a rule it is the willfully disruptive, the abusive and/or those enabling of disruption and abuse who have triggered disciplinary action -- and I can make no promises over what I cannot control. I do think, however, that it can be a convenient excuse to avoid addressing the matter on the merits, to demand an unreasonable concession. Sorry, there is a serious (and continuing) track record out there of abuse and misbehaviour. Do you want me to snip some samplers? Let me clip from my personal blog comment inbox:
Hey XXXX, are you still beating your wife and kids "mafioso style" . . .
That is the level of personally abusive, obsessive [and inadvertently self-revealing] slander and lies that we see out there, in this case from someone who evidently needs to check into an institution for serious evaluation and anger management counselling before he potentially goes off Newtown style, and who has engaged in Internet stalking that uses exactly mafioso style threats against my family. One who hides behind anonymity to try to out and slander, exploiting patent flaws in free site hosting policies. (There should be clear policies that resort to repeated personal abuse and outing behaviour is grounds for removal.) On the ID objector side of the issues, I have found very little willingness to police themselves in the face of such behaviour. So, I am sorry, there is no moral high ground on the other side to resort to. If someone out there has or can get a posting account here at UD [anyone can register and would get a fresh start], that would work. If someone is unwilling to do such, and cannot persuade the powers that be that s/he would not (again) resort to abusive or disruptive behaviour and/or is unwilling to clean up or make amends for the "see how we can smear ID-ers heh heh, . . . " fever swamp sites maintained for the delectation of the morally depraved, I cannot change the decision of the powers that be. What I can say, is that if someone can actually provide a solid essay as specified, it would be obvious that there is no answer and ID would be dead. The almost four months since the challenge was made are eloquent testimony of just how hard it has been for those who have championed evolutionary materialism to objectively ground their claims. So, let us see. KFkairosfocus
January 19, 2013
January
01
Jan
19
19
2013
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
petrushka:
I do not request any favors from UD other than the ability to post to the one thread and to any follow-up threads.
Mung
January 18, 2013
January
01
Jan
18
18
2013
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
I’m working on a 6000 word essay on why I support evolution. I will post it at UD if I’m allowed.
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1362&cpage=1#comment-18692Mung
January 18, 2013
January
01
Jan
18
18
2013
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
Mung: We shall see, though it would seem to me a little premature to proclaim the evolutionary materialist world picture as in effect practically certain if there is such evident difficulty coming up with a 6,000 word feature length essay that lays out at 101 level the core evidence that grounds such a claim regarding especially OOL and OO main body plans. My view increasingly is, that if they had a non-question begging case able to answer solidly to the issue, it would be all over the internet. KF.kairosfocus
December 26, 2012
December
12
Dec
26
26
2012
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
They're working on it, they just write very slowly. Until it comes to attacking ID, then they write quickly, without thinking.Mung
December 26, 2012
December
12
Dec
26
26
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
F/N: Today marks three months since this challenge was originally given. Let us see if Petrushka or another Darwinism advocate will provide a response. KFkairosfocus
December 23, 2012
December
12
Dec
23
23
2012
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT
Petrushka knows how to contact me, and once I receive an attempt [as stated since Sept 23, 2012], I will post the submission. KFkairosfocus
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
petrushka on December 14, 2012 at 3:37 am said:
I will be happy to post a 6000 word essay at UD just as soon as I’m allowed.
Mung
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
keiths, apparently, is not as bright as he likes to think. I was over there at TSZ, minding my Ps and Qs, behaving nicely, and he swings wide the door. An INVITATION!Mung
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Mung on December 14, 2012 at 3:31 am said: Over at Uncommon Descent an invitation has been presented to anyone at TSZ. They get a full 6000 words to make a case for their position. It's been on the table for quite some time now. You want me to put out a case for ID here at TSZ? How about a little quid pro quo? But from what I've seen you all would be getting far more from me than what you're capable of giving in return, so that would not really be a quid pro quo, would it? But we can't always get what we want, can we. gpuccio and Upright BiPed have shown far more guts by posting here than any of you poseurs. Where have you taken up the chance offered by KF at UD? Yes, keiths, even in spite of your prior banning at UD you've been given the same opportunity. But what have you presented? Nothing. So. Why Mung is an ID Supporter. Reason Number 1: Your side is bankrupt. Your arguments for your position on all the big issues turn out to be negative arguments against ID. And even if ID is false, it doesn't make your side right.Mung
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
peep peepMung
December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
PS: The several threadss that in aggregate are coming on 4,000 comments here at UD plus the parallel threads of the frustrated objectors who keep having Keystone Kops moments, give the lie to the assertions about censorship and suppression of serious discussion. Living room discussion rules work, and they keep the focus on the merits. In that context, the failure of objectors to take up an opportunity to get a free statement here at UD -- over two months now -- speaks volumes. (BTW, to see the sort of games that are actually exposing aggressive and censoring agendas, cf here.)kairosfocus
November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Mung, yup -- just as they were very quiet when I drew attention to two months since the original challenge, here. KFkairosfocus
November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
so so quietMung
November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Yup, dey's be tip-toe-ing by de graveyard all right. This duppy leaning on the fence says:BOO!kairosfocus
November 10, 2012
November
11
Nov
10
10
2012
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
peepMung
November 10, 2012
November
11
Nov
10
10
2012
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Chirp . . .kairosfocus
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
chirpMung
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
well darn. still no essay from toronto (or anyone else)?Mung
October 29, 2012
October
10
Oct
29
29
2012
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 20

Leave a Reply