Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
--Casey writes--
ID doesn't try to address theological questions about the identity, nature, or origin of the designer. The question "Who Designed the Designer?" is outside the scope of the scientific theory of ID, and is thus a philosophical or theological question that can only be addressed via philosophy or theology.
---
This is inconsistent because ID argues that information and complexity requires a designer and thus if they invoke a Supernatural entity, they have to explain who or what created this complex form.
Dawkins has done a great job at turning ID's 'argument' against itself.
And again Casey continues to make the same flawed argument
--
In fact, we can detect design without any knowledge of the designer’s identity or origin.
--
We cannot detect design reliably when we lack any positive data to constrain the designer. It's that simple. And yet that is what ID is attempting to do. Just ask any IDer, how does ID explain the bacterial flagella and you will be amazed that they provide nothing. That's because 'design' as defined by ID is at best a position of ignorance.
It's sad to see how ID keeps using 'bait and switch' between design as defined by ID and design as more commonly understood by the layperson.
And finally this fallacious claim
--Casey
This point illustrates the fact that someone drawing larger philosophical implications from ID does not disqualify it from being scientific. In fact, many Darwinists have argued that neo-Darwinism has larger anti-religious philosophical implications, but that does not make neo-Darwinism unscientific.
--
Of course not, because Darwinism is a scientific theory that stands on its own evidence. However, ID fails not only to present a scientific hypothesis, but worse cannot stand on its own legs. The vacuity of ID at a scientific level is explained easily by ID's appeal to the supernatural.
It's the religious motivations which caused ID to be developed, mostly as an outcome the Edwards ruling, to circumvent the law of the land. It's the religious motivation which has caused ID to remain scientifically vacuous.
Needless to say, the quote mining of Casey deserves more scrutiny but I am taking his suggestion and will retire to my lovely bed. If ID has to resort to this kind of quote mining then the state of affairs are even worse than I thought.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 9:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
--Casey
Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”(15)
--
Casey should be well aware with the history
--
?
A. I’m trying to set the context so I can give a full and complete answer to your question. So the interesting thing is that this is the only edition of any of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions, that contains that statement, and the reason for that quite simply is that I work with a co-author whose name is Joseph Levine, and Joe and I work together on many of the chapters in the book, but many of them we write separately and individually, and this was a statement as I was going through Joe’s chapters, and I feel very badly about that. When this was first pointed out to me, the third edition of this book was in print, I immediately went to Joe, I said Joe, I think this is a bad idea, I said I think this is a non-scientific statement, I think it will mislead students. Joe agreed. We immediately took it out of the book, and that’s why I emphasized that it did not appear in subsequent editions. So what you’re looking at, sir, is a mistake.
(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth Miller, Day 2 of Kitzmiller Trial (Sept. 27, 2005), pgs. 4-8.)
--
In the end the big difference is simple: ID has no scientific foundations, science does, in other words, there exists a valid secular purpose and the fact that some evolutionists are Christians and others are not is of no relevance.
However, ID's history combined with its lack of content has doomed it.
- PvM September 12, 2008 9:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Pandasthumb also explored these 'accusations'
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/kitzmillerrelat.html
Enjoy
--
We can learn a great deal about the nature of life by com- paring body systems among invertebrate groups and by tracing the patterns of change as we move from one phylum to an- other. As we do so, it is important to keep this concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected. A common misconception is that evolution has proceeded from one group of organ- isms toward a goal of perfection. This is definitely not true. Organisms are not better or worse than one another – they are simply different. And the ways in which organisms carry out their essential life functions are neither more nor less perfect than one another – they are merely different methods of accomplishing the tasks necessary for survival.
--
Context matters as does complete reporting of the facts.
- PvM September 12, 2008 9:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"The question "Who Designed the Designer?" is outside the scope of the scientific theory of ID, and is thus a philosophical or theological question that can only be addressed via philosophy or theology."
So, to be very clear, ID posits that there is an entity which designs things. This entity is part of the 'scientific' explanation of ID. However, the nature and origin of this entity is "philosophical or theological question" outside the scope of science. By placing the very foundation of the explanation of ID, the designer, outside the bound of scientific investigation Mr. Luskin exposes the fact that he believes the designer must be super-natural. Mr. Luskin cant have it both ways, either the designer is part of a scientific explanation, and therefore amenable to scientific investigation, or the designer is scientifically off-limits, and therefore ID is non-scientific.
Repeating myself for clarity.
Alegedly the designer of life could be intelligent aliens, like say Mr. Spock. If the question of my own origin is a scientific question with a scientific answer, then the question of Mr. Spock's origin is a scientific question with a scientific answer. If the question of my designers origin is not scientific and does not have a scientific answer, then my designer cannot be Mr. Spock, and my designer must be a super natural entity.
And a third time.
All natural explanations can be framed within science explanations. An explanation that cannot be framed scientifically, must not be a natural explanation, and this is colloquially referred to as a super natural explanation. Since the origin of the designer cannot be framed scientifically, the origin of the designer must have been a supernatural event, or the designer itself is supernatural. Q.E.D.
Mr. Luskin, I think you owe the world an apology at some point.
- Matthew Ackerman September 20, 2008 8:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
5
11
15
14
12
8
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Intelligent Design is in Fact Religiously Based
- From Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
By Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights - Advancing Objectivism
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID the Future: Ojective Science
"According to its advocates, the "designer" responsible for "intelligent design" in biology could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role."
Now let's see, 100 billion galaxies ... but nah, mankind is the only intelligent being in existence.
"[a] premise seems to be that as long as [we] don't explicitly name the "designer"--as long as [we] allow that the "designer" could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study--that this somehow saves [a] viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character."
Absolutely. There are two basic reasons to postulate anything. (1) A desire for it to be true (agenda), or (2) it fits the evidence (objectivism). Regarding a designer or creator, there is a third motivation for another position. (3) A desire for total independence, and/or the belief that one has logic that eclipses traditional beliefs. Atheism is more of a position of arrogance than one of objectivism.
ID postulates on evidence, not a religious position. Arguing that it is a tactic or a guise, simply because it may be in some cases, fails objectivism. It is more of a deterministic stance, i.e. arrogance.
"One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause."
Sorry to go against William Occam's easily falsifiable viewpoint, but complexity is the more the norm than the exception. And not by happenstance, but by design.
- Lee Bowman
September 11, 2008 8:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bowman
--
complexity is the more the norm than the exception. And not by happenstance, but by design.
--
Sure, we know what mechanism can cause the apparent design of complexity.
--
Now let's see, 100 billion galaxies ... but nah, mankind is the only intelligent being in existence.
--
That we know of. It's called selection bias.
ID speculates on lack of evidence to suggest that our ignorance is best explained by something called design. Let's not confuse the matter by claiming that ID postulates anything relevant to science.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 8:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Spontaneous generation is nonsense!!
I guess I must be old fashioned - but I do believe in real science. And I do recall that scientific experiments have never given evidence to suggest that spontaneous generation occurs. That being true, why in the world do so many in the scientific community hold so tightly to the notion that somehow, out of the "primordial ooze", given just the right mixture of mud, slime and chemicals, a living single cell organism just sort of "poofed" into existence, complete with DNA, and able to reproduce. And then, that single organism just kept on changing into a new species every so often, which "evolved" over time into all of the plants and animal that we see on the earth today. Now, that is a monstrous stretch of the imagination, not to mention totally non-scientific, and at best, pure speculation and more likely pure nonsense. There is no evidence to support this idea.
So why is this theory of spontaneous generation at the very core of modern science today?
Years ago, without the tools of DNA analysis, and to appease those who funded certain "scientific experiments and writing", I can see how the evolution theory was ginned up, with the backing of some physical science and observation. It was a story easy to understand, and with the education of the day, it appeared believable. People said, "Aaaaah. Now I can sleep at night, knowing how I got here."
I understand that without some kind of creation theory, there is a huge "void" in understanding our existence: How did we get here? Where did we come from? What about the dinosaurs? However, I was taught via science at a young age that "just because you don't understand something or have evidence to prove it, you are not justified in making up a story to fill in the gaps, and then selling the idea as fact".
Very recent, extensive, highly sophisticated genetic studies have generated very compelling evidence to suggest that one species does not "evolve" or "give rise", over time to a separate species. While I believe that through "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" a species in a given area may prosper or decline, and through that "natural selection" process, certain physical or other attributes become more common in a species in a given area, genetic evidence suggests that one species does not "evolves" into another species over time.
The way I see it, Intelligent Design is just as viable a theory as spontaneous generation. In fact, even more believable. Why? Because:
1.) I am 100% certain that I am really here. I can prove it. I am proof that a living human species really does exist. There is real, hard evidence. And there is solid evidence that a huge variety of different kinds of living things exist today on this earth and have existed in the past.
2.) The Human species has a huge variability in physical and other attributes, but genetically we are all one species. We are not genetically linked to any other species on the planet.
3.) Since spontaneous generation does not work, how do you account for the fact that there is life on this earth? It had to have happened some way. There is an explanation.
4.) And since one species does not give rise to another different species, just how would you account for the incredible variety of living species on this earth today? There has to be some explanation.
4.) The notion of Intelligent Design, with all of the possibilities that goes along with it (including the notion that perhaps that entity is possibly the same species as I am) seems very plausible to me, and not nearly as flakey as clinging to a non-scientific notion of spontaneous generation, or that one species gives rise to another different species over time and thereby gave rise to all of the varieties of species on this planet today.
C'mon now. Let’s actually be scientific about this! Intelligent Design has as much merit as the non-scientific evolution theory. Intelligent Design DOES NOT necessarily imply "religion". Where does that notion come from? It merely implies an intelligent life form "could" have had a hand (or paw, or branch) in populating this planet with the wide variety of living things we see today.
So the way I see it, anyone with a sound scientific mind would consider it idiotic NOT to put forth Intelligent Design as a possibility.
- jjsummers
October 12, 2008 12:02AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You've got it backwards.
Intelligent Design has been misrepresented as some kackamamy religiously motivated scheme by those who are afraid to challenge what they believe in. This misrepresentation is not true. Intelligent design is a bold and controversial new theory based on careful examination of genetics, astronomy, and biology. It is rapidly spreading through the scientific community, despite the bad name put forward by the Ayn Rand center and others. This theory is not the eyeball example that everyone has heard. "The human eye is far too complex to have come into being by chance, mwah, mwah mwah, mwah mwah." No! That is an opinion, not scientific fact. Intelligent Design has demonstrated using genetics and statistics that the chances of even the simplest life randomly occuring are too small to be statistically valid. That is a fact, not an opinion. The logical conclusion, then, is that for life to exist, some kind of designer is required. Committed Secularists, Objectivists, and other followers of violently atheistic religions are now terrified that, for the first time in a long time, science supports theism. As a result of this terror, they are religiously attacking this threat.
- richardsonkr
January 18, 2009 10:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the 500lb gorillia
First off, the human Eye did not pop into existence by chance, it is the result of billions of years worth of evolution ... a process by which slight mutations (changes in the structure) proved advantageous and were passed down, leading to more complex structures.
I'm not sure how ID has been demonstrated by genetics and statistics... however you are avoiding the big question that ID raises.
If life is to complex to exist without a designer, then that designer cannot be a living thing. If the designer is not a living thing then what is it? What was the designers intentions, where is the designer now? What predictions does ID make regarding the future?
- MrBook
January 19, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You missed my point.
The whole point of bringing up the eye example is to demonstrate that ID is an actual theory, and not a simple example in which someone proclaims that something is too complex based on their own judgements. ID doesn't use the eye example. Scientists studying simple ribosomes forming in conditions similar to the beginning of the Earth have determined that the chances of those ribosomes forming into a cell by random chance are too small to be statistically signifigant. It is then logical to posit that something as yet unexplained by science caused this to happen. There is more, unfortunately, I am not a genetecist, so I can't accurately convey all the juicy details, but many genetecists have come out and said that a designer of some kind is required for genetics to exist. We don't know what the designer is. That's the whole point. It is as yet not understood by science. It's still a very new and basic theory. Those questions are all opinion questions.
- richardsonkr
January 19, 2009 2:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actual theory?
"The whole point of bringing up the eye example is to demonstrate that ID is an actual theory, and not a simple example in which someone proclaims that something is too complex based on their own judgements."
- richardsonkr
If ID is an "actual theory," no doubt the answers to the following questions should be simple to produce.
1. What mechanisms are described by the Theory of Intelligent Design?
2. What predictions are made by the Theory of Intelligent Design?
3. How is the Theory of Intelligent Design falsifiable?
4. What observations are considered evidence for the Theory of Intelligent Design?
- The Dark Ride
August 30, 2009 9:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Richard
Natural selection isn't "random". Misrepresented? I suggest you read the history on the recent Dover trial, very revealing.
ID is not a scientific theory, please read the definition of what constitutes a scientific theory (and not the layman's version).
I'd like to see the study that has actually calculated the statistical probability of life appearing. Has this appeared in peer reviewed scientific journals?
Please cite instances of violent atheists who committed acts in the name of atheism. I assume by violent you mean causing physical harm and destruction of property? I don't know of a single one but I certainly know of multitudes of religious people who have done so.
Religion is scary because it invokes mysticism over reason and attempts to transcend the concept of right or wrong. I am commanded by God to kill my own son, there is no right or wrong, only the word of God. Hardly makes sense.
- Rearden
February 7, 2009 12:51AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rear
Nobody ever said that natural selection was random. Straw man. (Oh look, more misrepresentation!) The random comes in when particles of RNA that came out of the primordial ooze aligned by chance in such a way to produce a single-celled organism. The chances of that occuring randomly are absurdly small. If you can achieve that, life springing forth from non-life, evolution , at least in theory, actually holds water, though there are other problems.
The rulings of a few partisan judges do not invalidate a scientific theory any more than O.J. being set free invalidates forensics.
Since your arbitrary definition of a valid definition will surely not include mine, no matter what mine may be, I'm not going to bother offering up a definition for you to reject out of hand, simply because it came from me. (Who died and made you the definition master, anyway?) Give me your definition, and I'll beat you on your own terms.
I believe the study mentioned above is already included in the Expert Debate section, as I seem to recall reading that on this very site.
Violent Atheists are easy to find. (see, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, etc.) Though I didn't mean physically violent, but rather verbally and ideologically hateful and intolerant, the above still holds true. Atheists are no less violent than the religious.
The perception of knowledge is scary because it rules out new information. If you think or believe that something is true, you will be willing to change what you think/believe in light of new evidence. How can you change what you know? If we know the Earth is flat, how can it be round? If we know there is no god, how can there be a designer?
- richardsonkr
February 8, 2009 9:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
proto-cells
"The random comes in when particles of RNA that came out of the primordial ooze aligned by chance in such a way to produce a single-celled organism."
By the nature of their physical makeup RNA will reproduce, given the right chemicals near by.
Experiments indicate that there were several stages between the original replicator molecules and the first cell, proto-cellular life that was able to replicate.
"The chances of that occuring randomly are absurdly small."
Yes, in a sense. But just because the chance is very very small does not mean that it is impossible. It only takes one replicator molecule to start the entire process, and given the number of molecules that would have been swirling around in the ancient earths oceans it is quite possible that somewhere a replicator will form... If I roll one dice the chance of a six coming up is 1 in 6... but if I roll a thousand dice the chance that at least one will be a six is rather good.
"Atheists are no less violent than the religious."
True... but how does that old saying go... "With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion ."
"The perception of knowledge is scary because it rules out new information. If you think or believe that something is true, you will be willing to change what you think/believe in light of new evidence. How can you change what you know?"
That is why Science is so important. We have to be able to test our ideas.
"If we know the Earth is flat, how can it be round?"
The question, Scientifically speaking, is how do we know that the Earth is flat? What tests can you run to show that the earth is flat?
"If we know there is no god, how can there be a designer?"
As stated above... Scientifically speaking how can we show that there is a god?
Your question also presumes that there is a designer... which has not been show in a Scientifically testable manner.
- MrBook
September 13, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't get it
"Intelligent Design is in Fact Religiously Based"
So?
- ufcarazy
February 6, 2009 8:20AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So?
So...we don't teach religion in a science class.
- Rearden
February 7, 2009 12:55AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why?
Why?
- ufcarazy
February 7, 2009 5:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Because.
The same reason we don't teach literature in a home economics class.
- The Dark Ride
August 30, 2009 9:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you
The reason we don't teach literature in home economics is because those two subject have seemingly absolutely nothing to do with one another. Just so that I understand you correctly, are you saying that religion and science have seemingly absolutely nothing to do with one another?
- ufcarazy
August 31, 2009 11:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That would be
Well since they do not it is a true statement.
- MrBook
September 1, 2009 1:29AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
True.
While it is true that science and religion have little to do with one another that has never stopped teachers from pointing out that science refutes religion. Once a teacher brings it up the subject of religion is fair game.
- mike1948
September 1, 2009 10:25AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
pointing
How are Science teachers ‘pointing out that Science refutes religion ’? It is true that Science does refute certain religious teachings, but that is incidental to the Science itself.
- MrBook
September 1, 2009 5:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID is not religiously based?
Religion requires some kind of theology. Where is their theology? All ID says that something brought forth the universe. Does ID mean God? No. Science teaches that an infinite unknowable force brought forth the universe. Does this mean God?
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 2:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And your point is?
Could it be that you are biased against religion ? Because, I hate to break it to you but Christians believe that the world is round, so does that mean you disagree? Your foundation should be on whether or not your point of view is provable and truthful. I think intelligent design has merit on the same level as any other possible theories such as creationism and when we are closed minded to options thats when the evolution theory starts to break down and its probability is no more likely than any other theory, a hypothesis at best.
- hallelujahchorus
September 29, 2009 11:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
positions
"Because, I hate to break it to you but Christians believe that the world is round, so does that mean you disagree?"
But is a round earth inherently a Christian position?
Also, Pagans believe that the earth is round as well... do you disagree with that position because you disagree with other beliefs of Pagans.
- MrBook
September 30, 2009 7:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pagans believe in Gd they just Him; money
I recommend this book:God in the Foxhole by Charles Sasser, not that youll read it but hey its worth a try.
From the battlefields of the American Civil War through World Wars I and II, from Korea and Vietnam to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers of all faiths have struggled for understanding and called on a higher power when faced with the realities of combat. God in the Foxhole is a stunning collection of true personal accounts from generations of American soldiers whose faith, in the words of author Charles W. Sasser, "has been born, reborn, tested, sustained, verified, or transformed under fire."
A renowned master of combat journalism and a former Green Beret, Sasser has gathered an immensely moving collection of war stories like no other -- stories of spirituality, conversion, and miracles from the battlefield. Be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist, churched since childhood or touched by the divine for the first time, here are the riveting experiences of army privates, bomber pilots, navy lieutenants, marines, prisoners of war, medics, nurses, chaplains, and others who, under desperate circumstances and with every reason to fear for their lives, found unknown strength, courage, and heroism through their remarkable faith.
end quote.
In case you didnt see it their was an atheist or two in those foxholes, but not for very long! Hahaha
- hallelujahchorus
September 30, 2009 12:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Foxholes
"In case you didnt see it their was an atheist or two in those foxholes, but not for very long! Hahaha"
Sounds like a collection of anecdotal stories made by a biased source...
The 'no atheists in foxholes' is an aphorism and not a valid argument, as the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers will attest. In 2005 the MAAF held a march in Washington DC... in which one atheist from WWII was quoted as saying ‘No atheists in foxholes[?], I wasn’t in [just] one, I was in thirty.’
- MrBook
September 30, 2009 8:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.