Are faith and science at an impasse, with faith insisting that it’s view of revelation is the final arbiter of reality, while science refuses to discuss anything that can’t be weighed, measured or tested?
Both faith and science have important contributions to make to our ordinary life. Science makes sense of the natural world, explaining how things work and what the world is made of. This information is used to enhance life, make the world more manageable and extend the reach of our senses. Like any tool, it can also be used to control, and its use can have unexpected consequences.
Faith makes sense of our life experience in the world, explaining why we are here, and our relationship to the world and the people in it. This worldview enhances our life by helping us make sense of our context, our purpose and our future. Like any prescription, it can be divisive and controlling.
Science is an aide to faith because it helps us filter fact from fiction, and provides a means of testing claims that faith makes, especially when it comes to claims about the nature and origin of the world. It also rescues us from a world of caprice and superstition.
Faith can be a useful context for science, suggesting connections and directions for the world and our place in it that are not deducible from strictly material observations.
Faith that is divorced from the real world and how it works slides into superstition and ignorance. Science with no ethical content can become empty materialism. Faith is not the only context for ethics, but it is the source for millions of people.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Creationism Has Become Hate-Speech Disguised as Religion
Follow the tone of the creationist debate, and you realize that it is taking an increasing nasty and divisive direction. James Kennedy, the influential Christian broadcaster, promotes a DVD series entitled “Evolution, the Heart of the Problem.” This is an odd conceit for a minister who surely must believe that sin is the heart of the problem – but the hyperbole makes my point – a natural explanation for human differences and behavior is at the heart of his problem – a direct challenge to the primacy of conservative Christian theology over every aspect of life (political, religious, economic, cultural or scientific).
The book “I don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” asserts that scientists promote evolution, even through they know it is wrong, in order to gain sex, money and power. Of course, it is absurd on the face of it to think that evolution is a vast conspiracy, or that all scientists participate in some grand façade (let alone that scientists are rewarded for their participation in this scheme with sex, money or power). Still, this concept is put forward as a serious answer to the question, “If evolutionary theory is so flawed, why is it still in universal usage?” It is hard to see how any rational person could take this seriously – and yet, many conservative Christians accept this reasoning without question, apparently because it is just what they want to hear.
Scientists are regularly portrayed as part of an anti-God conspiracy, and the teaching of evolution, one of the best documented theories in science, is viewed as a deliberate broadside against the Christian faith.
Why has it become fashionable to deride and denounce science and scientists, and in fact the whole notion of a secular society? I see three main reasons.
First, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the selectively literal approach to Genesis favored by many Christian conservatives. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent and a very old universe, their assertions of special creation, a 6,000 year-old earth and a global flood are simply not plausible. Rather than face this fact, these conservatives have taken the offensive, and are attempting to discredit science. Their hope is that in the ensuing ignorance, they can step in and insist we adopt their viewpoint as the only allowable alternative.
Second, increasing secularism is eroding the authority of conservative churches, and resulting in a society that does not mirror the ideal order they envision from their reading of the Bible. Again, science is an obstacle in their path to a Christian society, because it offers explanations for human behavior and alternative social policies not grounded in their particular view of God. By working to eliminate the competition, the hope is that a theocratic state will emerge, in which conservative Christian values are imposed via legislation and self-censorship. We already see these trends in the attempts at inserting Christian dogma into public school science education, the movement for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the ardent desire to outlaw abortion.
Third, this movement underscores conservative Christians’ status as a persecuted minority. These persecuted believers have been given secret knowledge (via their reading of the bible) unavailable to science or reason. They view the broader culture as the playground of the devil, who has ensnared and blinded non-believers (that is, anyone who does not believe like they do). In this scenario, science is the handmaiden of the devil, weakening Christians’ faith in their interpretation of the bible, and providing “intellectual fulfillment” for atheists. Science-as-the-work-of-the-devil validates their self-image as a select group of persecuted saints who alone know the truth, and who will soon be rescued by the hand of God (who will at the same time destroy the earth, along with all unbelievers).
In this view, science is simply a causality in a war to establish a particular, sectarian vision of reality. Because science does not validate that reality, it must be consigned to the same fiery lake as everything that does not serve God. The Kennedy’s and Dobson’s of the world may use this kind of imagery as rhetorical devices to stir up their support base – but a generation raised on this hate speech and empowered by inflows of cash and political will from the far right may well form a modern tribe of Vandals, who take this "trash-secular-culture" rhetoric as literally as their reading of Genesis.
The book “I don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” asserts that scientists promote evolution, even through they know it is wrong, in order to gain sex, money and power. Of course, it is absurd on the face of it to think that evolution is a vast conspiracy, or that all scientists participate in some grand façade (let alone that scientists are rewarded for their participation in this scheme with sex, money or power). Still, this concept is put forward as a serious answer to the question, “If evolutionary theory is so flawed, why is it still in universal usage?” It is hard to see how any rational person could take this seriously – and yet, many conservative Christians accept this reasoning without question, apparently because it is just what they want to hear.
Scientists are regularly portrayed as part of an anti-God conspiracy, and the teaching of evolution, one of the best documented theories in science, is viewed as a deliberate broadside against the Christian faith.
Why has it become fashionable to deride and denounce science and scientists, and in fact the whole notion of a secular society? I see three main reasons.
First, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the selectively literal approach to Genesis favored by many Christian conservatives. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent and a very old universe, their assertions of special creation, a 6,000 year-old earth and a global flood are simply not plausible. Rather than face this fact, these conservatives have taken the offensive, and are attempting to discredit science. Their hope is that in the ensuing ignorance, they can step in and insist we adopt their viewpoint as the only allowable alternative.
Second, increasing secularism is eroding the authority of conservative churches, and resulting in a society that does not mirror the ideal order they envision from their reading of the Bible. Again, science is an obstacle in their path to a Christian society, because it offers explanations for human behavior and alternative social policies not grounded in their particular view of God. By working to eliminate the competition, the hope is that a theocratic state will emerge, in which conservative Christian values are imposed via legislation and self-censorship. We already see these trends in the attempts at inserting Christian dogma into public school science education, the movement for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the ardent desire to outlaw abortion.
Third, this movement underscores conservative Christians’ status as a persecuted minority. These persecuted believers have been given secret knowledge (via their reading of the bible) unavailable to science or reason. They view the broader culture as the playground of the devil, who has ensnared and blinded non-believers (that is, anyone who does not believe like they do). In this scenario, science is the handmaiden of the devil, weakening Christians’ faith in their interpretation of the bible, and providing “intellectual fulfillment” for atheists. Science-as-the-work-of-the-devil validates their self-image as a select group of persecuted saints who alone know the truth, and who will soon be rescued by the hand of God (who will at the same time destroy the earth, along with all unbelievers).
In this view, science is simply a causality in a war to establish a particular, sectarian vision of reality. Because science does not validate that reality, it must be consigned to the same fiery lake as everything that does not serve God. The Kennedy’s and Dobson’s of the world may use this kind of imagery as rhetorical devices to stir up their support base – but a generation raised on this hate speech and empowered by inflows of cash and political will from the far right may well form a modern tribe of Vandals, who take this "trash-secular-culture" rhetoric as literally as their reading of Genesis.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
A Celebration of Ignorance
Creationists want "their side" inserted into science textbooks. However, they have no real interest in teaching school children about actual controversies in science. How do I know? Just look at the subjects they focus on: origins of life, and common descent (evolution). They are totally uninterested in any other area (they'll get to cosmology eventually), because their real goal is to make the classroom safe for their narrow interpretation of Genesis.
The science textbooks take the approach that, after hundreds of years of scientific progress in understanding the natural world in terms of physical processes, there is in every likelihood a natural chain of events leading from non-life to life (even if we never figure it out). After all, the reasoning might go, here we are. Trying to stay clear of a confrontation with a multitude of religious claims, the textbooks do not attempt an analysis of natural versus super-natural causation. What they do teach is the consensus view of our understanding of the natural world (albeit always a few years out-of-date).
The creationists here are coming from a different viewpoint - they already know God "poofed" everything into existence 6,000 years ago, and so reject any claim that a natural chain of events led to life, because they "know" that is not how it was done.
Just as with ID, even if we can't figure out HOW it could have happened, this does not mean that God did it via a supernatural event- it just means that we have not figured it out. So we are back to the classic God-in-the-gaps explanation. YEC-ers argue for gaps in our understanding where they can say, "see, God did it." Inevitably, the gaps reconfigure, and the YEC-ers are forced to say "What I meant was, God did that."
Compare this with geocentrism in Martin Luther's time. The gap was different, but the approach is the same.
Martin Luther based his geocentrism on the Bible (just like YECs), he denied the evidence in deference to his interpretation of Scripture (just like YECs), and he was demonstrably wrong (just like the YECs).
The YEC position results in:
So not only do I think the YEC approach is flawed as both an approach to biblical interpretation AND as science; it also shrinks God to fit into a set of ever-diminishing, tawdry gaps.
The science textbooks take the approach that, after hundreds of years of scientific progress in understanding the natural world in terms of physical processes, there is in every likelihood a natural chain of events leading from non-life to life (even if we never figure it out). After all, the reasoning might go, here we are. Trying to stay clear of a confrontation with a multitude of religious claims, the textbooks do not attempt an analysis of natural versus super-natural causation. What they do teach is the consensus view of our understanding of the natural world (albeit always a few years out-of-date).
The creationists here are coming from a different viewpoint - they already know God "poofed" everything into existence 6,000 years ago, and so reject any claim that a natural chain of events led to life, because they "know" that is not how it was done.
Just as with ID, even if we can't figure out HOW it could have happened, this does not mean that God did it via a supernatural event- it just means that we have not figured it out. So we are back to the classic God-in-the-gaps explanation. YEC-ers argue for gaps in our understanding where they can say, "see, God did it." Inevitably, the gaps reconfigure, and the YEC-ers are forced to say "What I meant was, God did that."
Compare this with geocentrism in Martin Luther's time. The gap was different, but the approach is the same.
| Quote: |
| "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." - Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43. |
Martin Luther based his geocentrism on the Bible (just like YECs), he denied the evidence in deference to his interpretation of Scripture (just like YECs), and he was demonstrably wrong (just like the YECs).
The YEC position results in:
- a celebration ignorance (God acts only where we don't know what happened - as soon as it is explained "scientifically" God disappears from view),
- discouraging real science (any attempt to demonstrate the "hows" of a gap are seen as part of an anti-God agenda), and
- distorting our educational system (instead of learning about the world, the classroom is given over to partisan wrangling about the validity of the Genesis account of creation).
So not only do I think the YEC approach is flawed as both an approach to biblical interpretation AND as science; it also shrinks God to fit into a set of ever-diminishing, tawdry gaps.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Dinosaurs and Humans? Oh No!
The belief that dinosaurs and humans could have lived at the same time is an idea that has been kept alive past its time. The evidence for human and dinosaur co-existence seems to be:
There is a big difference between explaining how something could be true, and actually looking at the evidence we have, and concluding it actually IS true. You can believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time only if you look at a small sub-section of the evidence, and present that sub-section in the best possible light. Look at all the evidence, and subject that evidence to critical thinking, and you realize that people and dinosaurs never met.
- Biblical references to behemoth and leviathan, assumed to be actual creatures and dinosaurs,
- Literary references to dragons (said dragons assumed to be dinosaurs),
- Cave paintings believed to depict dinosaurs contemporary with the humans who drew them, and
- Human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock.
- The plants and animals found with dinosaurs are not the same plants and animals found with humans (not even close). No modern plants or animals have been found with dinosaurs, for example, and no plants or animals found with dinosaurs have been found with human remains.
- Dinosaurs and humans are not found in the same strata. For example, in Kansas, dinosaurs can be found in the remains of a shallow sea, while people are found in the remains of a vast plain. Note that the biblical references to behemoth and leviathan refer to these creatures as being alive in the author’s lifetime, so they all could not have died off pre-flood.
- Unlike other extinct creatures that humans interacted with (the mammoth, for instance), there are no artifacts demonstrating interaction. We have found mammoth bones scored by spears, charred bones of mammoths in trash heaps, carved mammoth tusks, etc. There have been no such finds involving dinosaurs.
- Ancients ran across dinosaur fossils as well, and tales of large creatures could easily have come from these bones – just as our dinosaur stories in our popular culture have. Furher, dragons don't actually look or act much like dinosaurs (except that they are both large).
- The Bible's references to dinosaurs? There isn't any. The Bible refers to creatures known to the readers - and we have no evidence that dinosaurs lived with people (remember the evidence for human-mammoth interaction - and this is in pre-literate, pre-historic cultures; by the times of the Bible, we are dealing with literate cultures where we would have every reason to expect dinosaurs to show up, just like bears, lions, locusts and a host of other clearly identifiable animals do, in paintings, in literature, in "scientific" treatises, etc.).
- The claims of human footprints found in the same rock with dinosaurs have turned out to be made in error. Even a quick Google of the subject puts the claims to rest (sure, some people still support the idea, but there is no substantive evidence - none at all).
There is a big difference between explaining how something could be true, and actually looking at the evidence we have, and concluding it actually IS true. You can believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time only if you look at a small sub-section of the evidence, and present that sub-section in the best possible light. Look at all the evidence, and subject that evidence to critical thinking, and you realize that people and dinosaurs never met.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
What Do We Mean by Special Creation?
Special Creation is the term creationists use when they want to say that God created the world, and everything in it, pretty much the way we see it today. Further, they contend that He created it all at once, bypassing the natural processes and mechanisms we see at work around us in the universe. So while we see proto-stars, this is not how God made the current stars, though we see material from which planets will form, and material left over from planets that have formed, this is not how God made the planet we are on. Though we have discovered vast plates on which all the surface of the earth rides, these had nothing to do with the formation of the land masses we now see. Though we see evolution at work every day, evolution is not the process through which the diversity of life developed. It is true that some creationists recognize that natural forces are at work in the world, and ascribe trivial changes to them - but creationism ascribes the vast majority of the natural world to a 6 day stretch of time during which everything simply came to be.
Is there any scientific support for the idea of special creation? That is, can the facts we observe about the natural world be reconciled with the idea of a recent (6,000 year) earth, brought into existence over a 6-day period of time? The simple and best answer is no. At every level you look at it, the account of creation in Genesis 1 does not stand up as a "scientific" explanation of how the world was created. For me at least, this does not mean that it is not true - it is a declaration of freedom from bondage to the elemental forces thought to rule the earth - not a scientific explanation of the earth's construction.
It turns out that creation is a metaphor for processes that were not understood at the time, and for which people had neither the world-view, technology or even vocabulary to comprehend. And like all metaphors, it breaks down when you push it to the level of detail required to see the world as it is.
Take the opening sentence "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When we contemplate these words, we most likely think of the familiar picture of a blue earth resting in vast space. This is not what the original hearers imaged at all - they pictured a vast sea, on which the earth, plate-like, rested on pillars. More pillars supported a dome of sky, and above that, the heavens - the place where God literally dwelt. Below the earth was a place of danger and chaos, where the dead went. The entire world was centered on the middle east, and Australia, North and South America did ot exist. Even much of Asia, India and Europe were unknown, or the merest fables. Ships kept close to the shore for fear of getting lost or eaten by monsters, women and children were property, slaves were a natural part of everyday life, and the world was ruled by powerful and unseen forces, investing all of nature with supernatural menace - capricious gods and spirits who had to be placated at every turn. This is the world pictured by the hearers of Genesis 1.
And where do we live now? In a world with 10,000 species of micro-organisms in a GRAM of soil. In a world where there are 350,000 species of beetle, where we can see the evidence of the slow shift of continents, and find the fossils of - not just strange creatures who have gone extinct- but entire ecosystems (plant and animal) who have developed and died out not just once or twice, but over and over during the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. Seas have formed and dried up, only to be replaced by plains, mountains have thrust seabeds into the sky, entire mountain ranges have been washed into the oceans - not once, but many times. We are not just related to the other apes - we share something like 98% of our DNA with them.
Yes life is wonderful and amazingly complex, and yes, there are still things we have not figured out - but one thing we have figured out is that we were not created 6,000 years ago from the dust of the earth.
Is there any scientific support for the idea of special creation? That is, can the facts we observe about the natural world be reconciled with the idea of a recent (6,000 year) earth, brought into existence over a 6-day period of time? The simple and best answer is no. At every level you look at it, the account of creation in Genesis 1 does not stand up as a "scientific" explanation of how the world was created. For me at least, this does not mean that it is not true - it is a declaration of freedom from bondage to the elemental forces thought to rule the earth - not a scientific explanation of the earth's construction.
It turns out that creation is a metaphor for processes that were not understood at the time, and for which people had neither the world-view, technology or even vocabulary to comprehend. And like all metaphors, it breaks down when you push it to the level of detail required to see the world as it is.
Take the opening sentence "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When we contemplate these words, we most likely think of the familiar picture of a blue earth resting in vast space. This is not what the original hearers imaged at all - they pictured a vast sea, on which the earth, plate-like, rested on pillars. More pillars supported a dome of sky, and above that, the heavens - the place where God literally dwelt. Below the earth was a place of danger and chaos, where the dead went. The entire world was centered on the middle east, and Australia, North and South America did ot exist. Even much of Asia, India and Europe were unknown, or the merest fables. Ships kept close to the shore for fear of getting lost or eaten by monsters, women and children were property, slaves were a natural part of everyday life, and the world was ruled by powerful and unseen forces, investing all of nature with supernatural menace - capricious gods and spirits who had to be placated at every turn. This is the world pictured by the hearers of Genesis 1.
And where do we live now? In a world with 10,000 species of micro-organisms in a GRAM of soil. In a world where there are 350,000 species of beetle, where we can see the evidence of the slow shift of continents, and find the fossils of - not just strange creatures who have gone extinct- but entire ecosystems (plant and animal) who have developed and died out not just once or twice, but over and over during the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. Seas have formed and dried up, only to be replaced by plains, mountains have thrust seabeds into the sky, entire mountain ranges have been washed into the oceans - not once, but many times. We are not just related to the other apes - we share something like 98% of our DNA with them.
Yes life is wonderful and amazingly complex, and yes, there are still things we have not figured out - but one thing we have figured out is that we were not created 6,000 years ago from the dust of the earth.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
If not us, then who?
While we are all living our lives with a "it could never happen here" philosophy, people are moving into the vacuums created by our non-involvement.
No one around to demand integrity and accountability in politics? The unscrupulous and opportunistic step into their niches.
No one willing to preach the gospel of Christ, knowing what it will do to their TV ratings and "free-will" offerings? Tell people what they want to hear - appeal to their vanity, their pride, their weaknesses, their fears, their prejudices.
No one around to insist that capitalism be balanced with compassion and concern for 'the commons?" Corporations take it as their duty to maximize profit - no matter what it does to people, society or the environment.
We drop duty, service, mercy from our personal values? People get ahead by being selfish and self-serving, and entire industries arise to help them along.
We humans have a remarkable ability to shape our environment - and the shape of that environment determines the behaviors required to succeed. We create and strengthen our environments by every action we take – which is why character matters, and why mercy and compassion matters, and what gives meaning to duty and sacrifice and service.
If not us, then who?
No one around to demand integrity and accountability in politics? The unscrupulous and opportunistic step into their niches.
No one willing to preach the gospel of Christ, knowing what it will do to their TV ratings and "free-will" offerings? Tell people what they want to hear - appeal to their vanity, their pride, their weaknesses, their fears, their prejudices.
No one around to insist that capitalism be balanced with compassion and concern for 'the commons?" Corporations take it as their duty to maximize profit - no matter what it does to people, society or the environment.
We drop duty, service, mercy from our personal values? People get ahead by being selfish and self-serving, and entire industries arise to help them along.
We humans have a remarkable ability to shape our environment - and the shape of that environment determines the behaviors required to succeed. We create and strengthen our environments by every action we take – which is why character matters, and why mercy and compassion matters, and what gives meaning to duty and sacrifice and service.
If not us, then who?
Monday, August 21, 2006
Can A Christian Color Outside the Lines?
Have you read Acts 1:9 where Luke writes about Jesus' ascension into heaven:
"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
Do we think that heaven is up in the air, above the dome of the sky? The disciples seemed to think so.
Do we think that heaven is anywhere in this physical realm at all?
If heaven is not "away beyond the blue," then why did Jesus travel up a few hundred feet in the air, and then disappear behind a cloud? And where did he go? And why couldn't he have just gone there from right on the ground?
Of course, it is fine to say that there may be things about heaven we do not understand (surely we understand little or nothing) - but we can be fairly certain that heaven is located in no physical place that we can see, or reach, or locate on a map or celestial chart. In any event, we can be pretty certain that heaven is in no place that required Jesus to lift up off the ground and disappear behind a cloud.
So why did he do it? Is there a sense of theater here, playing to the expectations of the disciples? Is Jesus meaning to teach something about the location of heaven, or is he underscoring that that is indeed where he was headed? Certainly the disciples would have seen this as an unambiguous act by Jesus - literally ascending into heaven. The creeds affirm as much. It certainly cannot mean the same thing to us - we've seen what is "up there" and it is space and a planetary system and very distant stars.
So yes, science can make us take a new look at the Bible - and it "makes us look" whether we want to or not. We do not read the bible or experience the world in the same way Abraham or Moses or John or Paul did. We cannot make it otherwise - except by imposing ignorance through the process of demolishing science. This is just what well-meaning people do when they insist that matters of faith be taught as if they were scientifically demonstrated facts. When any heartfelt belief can be legislated into science, then science is in danger of losing its essential character, and truth becomes a word meaning only the opinion promoted most forcefully.
In the name of piety, there certainly are those who are taking an axe to the tree of science. They will be shocked to discover that what grows up is a crop of weeds - all claiming to be beautiful flowers of truth. Let's hope that someone is always around to stop such senseless vandalism - and let's resolve to be that someone.
"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
Do we think that heaven is up in the air, above the dome of the sky? The disciples seemed to think so.
Do we think that heaven is anywhere in this physical realm at all?
If heaven is not "away beyond the blue," then why did Jesus travel up a few hundred feet in the air, and then disappear behind a cloud? And where did he go? And why couldn't he have just gone there from right on the ground?
Of course, it is fine to say that there may be things about heaven we do not understand (surely we understand little or nothing) - but we can be fairly certain that heaven is located in no physical place that we can see, or reach, or locate on a map or celestial chart. In any event, we can be pretty certain that heaven is in no place that required Jesus to lift up off the ground and disappear behind a cloud.
So why did he do it? Is there a sense of theater here, playing to the expectations of the disciples? Is Jesus meaning to teach something about the location of heaven, or is he underscoring that that is indeed where he was headed? Certainly the disciples would have seen this as an unambiguous act by Jesus - literally ascending into heaven. The creeds affirm as much. It certainly cannot mean the same thing to us - we've seen what is "up there" and it is space and a planetary system and very distant stars.
So yes, science can make us take a new look at the Bible - and it "makes us look" whether we want to or not. We do not read the bible or experience the world in the same way Abraham or Moses or John or Paul did. We cannot make it otherwise - except by imposing ignorance through the process of demolishing science. This is just what well-meaning people do when they insist that matters of faith be taught as if they were scientifically demonstrated facts. When any heartfelt belief can be legislated into science, then science is in danger of losing its essential character, and truth becomes a word meaning only the opinion promoted most forcefully.
In the name of piety, there certainly are those who are taking an axe to the tree of science. They will be shocked to discover that what grows up is a crop of weeds - all claiming to be beautiful flowers of truth. Let's hope that someone is always around to stop such senseless vandalism - and let's resolve to be that someone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
