I Call It Fascism: A Critique of the British Humanist Association’s “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” Position Statement

Secular humanists, atheists and evolution enforcement groups [posing as “science advocacy groups”] have given up scientific debate. Instead they’ve resorted to a more fascist approach: mockery and legal suppression of alternative theories or dissent from Darwin in any form. Now they want even more, and what they want would make Galileo turn over in his grave.

A few days ago, I wrote an article called Evolution Is the Only Scientific Theory That Needs Laws To Protect It, in which I drew attention to efforts by the British Humanist Association and a handful of evolutionist, including misotheist Richard Dawkins, regarding science education in UK schools. In essence they want microbes-to-man evolution taught exclusively and uncritically in all UK schools, and, since they do in fact believe the Biblical axiom of Proverbs 22:6 (“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it”), they want our children indoctrinated in evolutionary dogma at an earlier age.

Now, as promised, I will dissect the position statement being promoted by the BHA to demonstrate the fallacies of logic contained therein.

It’s ironic, but I cannot even get past the title of their effort, “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism,” without having to caution my readers against a trick of rhetoric. By contrasting the term “evolution” with “creation-ISM,” the authors of this position statement have given us a question-begging epitaph. A fair presentation of the issue would have read, “Teach Evolution, Not Creation,” or even, “Teach Evolutionism, not Creationism,” but the BHA did not wish to put the creation origins framework on equal footing with evolution, so they added the “-ism” to their opponent’s position to make it seem less credible. It really doesn’t bode well when even the title begs the question.

Onward. The position statement is divided into two sections. As the heading indicates, the first concerns:

“Creationism and ‘intelligent design’”

OK, stop right there. We’ve already noted how adding the “-ism” to creation is meant to illegitimize their opponents’ position, but Why is intelligent design in quotes? Well, that’s a similar trick. If you put your opponent’s position in quotes or preface it with an adjective like “so-called,” you’re [again] begging the question. By couching the argument this way, the BHA hopes to get folks biased against creation and intelligent design from the get-go without actually addressing why they’re allegedly illegitimate.

Anyway, they made a pretense of content after that heading, so we’ll continue, noting beforehand that both the question-begging “-ism” and the use of quotes is repeated:

“Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools.”

The very first sentence contains two fallacies.

[1] That Creation and ID are not scientific theories. This [again] simply begs the entire question. Certainly the BHA does not bother to explain or rationalize their bold-faced denial, but rational minds might ask “By what definition of science are creation and/or ID invalidated as scientific theories? If it’s a self-serving definition that insists on pure naturalism then they’ve not only begged the question but they’ve also given away the fact that they simply wish to disqualify the question without addressing whether it’s true! That being the case, science is no longer a search for truth but a search for purely natural answers whether they happen to be true or not! This is not scientific inquiry; it’s dissemblance.

[2] That ID and Creation are supported only by some religious fundamentalists. Many ID proponents are far removed from being fundamentalists by any definition of the term! In fact, some Intelligent Design advocates even ascribe to a form of evolution, just not the arbitrarily godless [purely natural] variety. It is obvious then that they are trying to dredge up the old science versus religion chestnut, when both sides have their scientists and clergy in support of either theory.

So note that thus far this position statement gives us unqualified, question-begging epitaphs and then goes on to so grossly misrepresent their opponents that we are forced to wonder whether they’ve even bothered to examine their opponent’s position before they bothered to disagree with it.

No doubt hoping for a credulous government, they continue [in bold print, no less]:

 “There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.”

Well, that’s fascist. I also feel compelled to note that “enforceable statutory guidance” is an oxymoron that would feel right at home in the pages of Orwell’s 1984.

To justify such extreme measures, they offer the following evidence [abandoning bold print for more sensible type-setting for the moment]:

“Organisations like ‘Truth in Science’ are encouraging teachers to incorporate ‘intelligent design’ into their science teaching. ‘Truth in Science’ has sent free resources to all Secondary Heads of Science and to school librarians around the country that seek to undermine the theory of evolution and have ‘intelligent design’ ideas portrayed as credible scientific viewpoints. Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.”

Both Truth in Science and Creation Ministries International have responded to BHA, so I’ll let them speak for themselves. In a brief statement called What Is There To Fear?, Truth In Science stated:

“Although Truth in Science features prominently in this web article, the organization has never advocated the teaching of creationism in science lessons in schools. It has consistently advocated, promoted and distributed materials that encourage a more critical approach to the teaching of Evolution as an important component of science education, allowing individuals to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The DVDs and textbooks distributed by TiS are designed to provide additional resources to teachers and students to facilitate this journey. Legislation to protect science from thoughtful enquiry is surely a contradiction of terms. Science can only flourish in an environment of academic freedom.”

Similarly, in a slightly longer response, CMI stated:

“Unfortunately, the media’s general reporting of this latest campaign is as misleading as the statements made by the scientists seeking to support the BHA and its apostles of secularism. According to the Guardian, “Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.” In fact, the majority of our speaking engagements are at churches and we visit schools only occasionally. When we do speak at schools, it is by invitation or has been instigated by someone known to the school locally and never solicited by CMI. Moreover, it is extremely rare for us to speak in a science class.”

CMI also notes that the BHA isn’t the only misotheistic organization attempting to enforce an evolution-only curriculum in science classrooms. The British Centre for Science Education launched its “CrISIS” [Creation In Schools Isn’t Science] campaign to attempt to convince the UK government to shut down any exposure of students to creation concepts, even in religious instruction. The CrISIS campaign was supported by the Ekklesia [an organization that claims to be Christian but actually opposes Christian influence and promotes an unbiblical liberal agenda, much like “rev” Barry Lynn’s Americans United for Separation of Church and State here in the USA], Richard Dawkins and many of those who now endorse BHA’s efforts.

CMI’s criticisms of the CrISIS campaign could just as easily apply to BHA’s efforts:

“Science has incidentally advanced historically through debate and dialogue without appeals to special authority, and such dictatorial statements are a poor reflection of the true nature of science. Instead it reflects more the attitude of Cardinal Bellarmine and the Church authorities who tried to silence Galileo, than a genuine respect for freedom of enquiry in science. Such demands to ban some lines of enquiry may suit atheists who a priori reject creation, but it will not advance science. We may ask then whether science is really a search for truth, or as the signatories of this statement wish, merely a search for naturalistic explanations irrespective of whether such explanations can even exist for such things as the origin of everything.

Creationists would welcome public debate with anyone who wants to defend the statement that “Creationism is … contrary to scientific fact”. But rather than allow such debate, the proponents of this campaign would rather suppress the matter.

But more importantly, this campaign and statement clearly has little respect for the beliefs of a significant religious minority in the UK, including children, as it seeks to deny freedom of speech to those who believe in special creation… There is a sad irony here, in that secularists and atheists are showing a degree of intolerance that they have accused conservative religious believers of displaying. This statement reflects a belief in the dominance of science over other areas of education and thought—this is really scientism; science as a worldview, a religious belief system.”

Oblivious to the irony and inadvisability of their position, the BHA continues [in bold print once more] by repeating themselves:

“The current government guidance that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ should not be taught in school science should be made statutory and enforceable. It also needs to be made comprehensive so that it is clear that any portrayal of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ as science (whether it takes place in science lessons or not) is unacceptable.”

All they do here is make it abundantly clear just how paranoid they are that someone might expose children of UK citizens [most of whom think that creation and evolution should be taught side by side, mind you] to the creation framework of origins and thus bust up their intended monopoly on the minds of future generations. This kind of Nazi thinking is exactly why I came up with the religious proclamation, There Is No Science but Naturalism and Darwin Is Its Prophet! to make it more evident what these evolution enforcement groups are actually proposing.

Their next section is on evolution:

“An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology.”

Theodosius Dobzhansky, in a fit of religious devotion, made the outlandish claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution!” But is that really true?

Atheist Dr Michael Zimmerman makes a similar claim in the pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project:

“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”

But the sad truth is that creation is foundational to science, not evolution. As I responded in the Creation Letter:

“Observable, testable, repeatable science has brought us many benefits and innovations. The founders of modern science were Creationists, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Most of the disciplines within science were founded before Darwin or by scientists who actually rejected his theory. The Scientific Method itself is based on the idea that an orderly creation can be rationally understood because it was designed by an Intelligent Creator. Creationists today continue to practice normal, experimental science without need of evolution.

Evolution is not observable, testable, repeatable science. It’s a belief about the past, an atheist Just-So Story seeking to displace the divinely revealed Creation record. It’s based on the flaw of naturalism, which begs that all problems must have a natural explanation, so God isn’t needed. This stands directly at odds with the Biblical claim that God’s existence, eternal power and Godhead are self-evident in His Creation, for it excludes an Intelligent Creator from all consideration. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions! Sadly, statistics demonstrate that children taught godless evolution as scientific truth reject religious truth wholesale!

And frankly, I must insist that they define the term evolution. You see, evolutionists use the term “evolution” for BOTH the sort of observable horizontal changes in biology [eg., speciation, mutation, adaptation, etc] that Creationist also affirm AND the larger claim of unobservable vertical [phyletic] changes in biology [viz. microbes-to-man evolution]. In fact, often they will speak of observable horizontal changes and then switch their definition of evolution to mean the goo-to-you claim of common ancestry without drawing attention to it. The observable horizontal changes in biology that creationists and evolutionists both affirm ARE indispensible to our understanding of biology.  However, microbes-to-man evolution is NOT at all central or fundamental to our understanding of biology; rather than being central to our understanding of biology, fish-to-philosopher evolutionary interpretations are tacked onto real science in an ad hoc manner. The very fact that a good number of practicing biologists are also Creationist and proponents of ID suggests that claims of the centrality of evolution to the understanding of the field of study are overstatement at best.

Without bothering to clarify what they mean by evolution, the BHA statement nonetheless demand [in bold, followed less shrill print]:

The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.

Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15), but the government is overseeing a review of the whole curriculum with the revised National Curriculum for science being introduced in September 2012 to be made compulsory from 2013. Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all.

The text of their on-line petition elaborates further on their intent:

Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. At the same time, an understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15). Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all. We petition the Government to make clear that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories and to prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools, including in ‘faith’ schools, religious Academies and religious Free Schools. At the same time, we want the Government to make the teaching of evolution in mandatory in all publicly-funded schools, at both primary and secondary level.

Basically, they want evolution taught in all UK schools, exclusively and uncritically. Maybe they should call this goose-stepping fascism the Darwin Youth campaign. Or perhaps I’m prophesying something much worse to come despite my irony. This document is a request that the religious rights of the citizens of the UK be grossly denied when it comes to education. In effect, the petition is urging the UK government to enact a new age of religious persecution and discrimination based on a state dogma of godless evolution.

Let me speak plainly: These people at the British Humanist Association and their allies have no true interest in the integrity science. Their true objective is in spreading their own humanistic worldview; thus, they do not mind overmuch if evolution is taught as dogma in UK schools and protected by law from both criticism and competition, for by insisting that this all-natural origins framework be taught as fact to our children in public schools without either showing the flaws of that theory [including the limitation that it can only come up with all-natural answers that may or may not be true, and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible, though it would never be able to ascertain this error under the arbitrary limitation of science as naturalism] or by teaching the competing supernatural origins framework,  they are simply indoctrinating kids in a secular humanist worldview.  Some folks will object that to be secular is best because it’s neutral to religion or irreligion, but this is demonstrably false. To be secular is to be irreligious; it is to favor irreligion over religion… and it implies to our children that such irreligion is preferable in our society!

We must pray for our Christian brethren in the UK and for their children, that they might have zeal, wisdom, boldness and success against those who would lay a stumbling block before our children!

One final thought before I close this piece: The geocentrists of Galileo’s day were smug in the fact that the scientific consensus affirmed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They castigated those who dissented from this established view, which had endured for centuries by that point. They misused their power and influence to effectively tar and feather those who thought the evidence better suited heliocentrism. And they were wrong. This history lesson should remind evolutionists like Richard Dawkins that they need to grow some humility. No matter how long a theory prevails, it may be overturned. A refusal to consider the alternative, a recourse to legal protections, and a standard tactic of public mockery and suppression of dissent is antithetical to scientific inquiry. In fact, these are the hallmarks of dogma. And of cowardice.

Think about it.

-Sirius Knott


16 Comments Add yours

  1. Stormbringer says:

    Excellent treatment of the subject. Naturally, you’ll be “refuted”, but not by the truth. Teaching one side of origins and actively suppressing contrary evidence is indoctrination, not education. But you knew that already. Keep up the good work.

  2. drlindberg says:

    Speaking of fascism, how is that all my comments to your articles are mysteriously “disappeared”?

    1. Dr Lindberg,

      This is a moderated site, not an open forum. Your comments didn’t disappear; they were never approved to begin with.

      For the insinuated charge of fascism to be true, I would have to control all major outlets of discussion online and have the power to suppress or marginalize sites who voiced dissenting opinions. I clearly have neither the power nor the notion to thus suppress discussion of the topics I raise here… but in the end, this is my particular soapbox and I’m under no obligation to give you mine when you are able to procure your own!

      Your comment reminds me of the lamentable fellow who declared me a part of the “American Christian Taliban” for daring to suggest that churches voluntarily dedicate the Sunday nearest Charles Darwin’s birthday to the doctrine of Biblical Creation. It’s the worst sort of overstatement.

      Rev Tony Breeden

      1. Stormbringer says:

        In that regard, I bet you have had the same experiences I had, that if you delete a comment, it’s because you’re “scared”, or are “shielding others from the truth”. People love to use false dilemmas, non sequiturs and anything else just to attack.

      2. Yeah, Stormbringer, I’ve gotten a few accusations.

        I’ll be honest with you. I could bring traffic to this site like nobody’s business if I turned it into a flame warzone, but the Bible says not to cast pearls and not to argue for argument’s sake. I have no problem debating atheists and evolutionists to a point. Ironically, is typically the evos who avoid debate. But in the end, the aim of this site is informational, so I generally answer questions that I think other people might be asking, whether skeptics or seekers.

        Yet as I’ve clearly stated in my Rules of Engagement:

        “This not your soapbox. Get your own blog if you want to vent… I do reserve the right [and responsibility to my readership] to edit your comments… I don’t feel obligated to approve every last comment I’ve been submitted simply because you bothered to blather my way. This in no way infringes upon your rights of free speech for the excellent reason that I am not City Hall.”


      3. drlindberg says:

        Sorry! I thought this was a discussion site.
        Would you happen to know of any uncensored sites run by anti-evolutionists?

      4. Dr Lindberg,

        I don’t even know of any anti-creationist sites that are purely uncensored. Even PZ Myers boots trolls he considers troublesome into the killfile dungeon.


  3. drlindberg says:

    By the way, I’m not a doctor. D R are my initials.

  4. drlindberg says:


    Myers gives a list and explains why each was banned. Do you?

    I try to be polite. If you find me obnoxious, or stupid, or ignorant, please explain why, and I’ll try to reform.


    1. Lindberg,

      You haven’t been banned. Your comments simply haven’t been approved yet. I’m rather busy these days.

      Of course, if you’ve read my Rules of Engagement, you’ll note that I do not feel compelled to approve every comment I receive either.

      Patience is a virtue.


      1. drlindberg says:

        I’m sorry if I’m out of hand. Of course, you have every right to run your site as you see fit, and I try to conform to your rules.

        I think that my point was that I see far more restrictions on anti-evolution sites than on pro-evolution sites, so I was just wondering if you knew of any anti-evolution sites that are not subject to moderation, i.e., pre-censorship, which by its very nature is more restrictive than the post-censorship you complain about with Myers.

        In other words, can I generalize from my own experience?

        Getting back to the original topic here, didn’t these legal squabbles begin with the banning of the teaching of evolution until the late 1960s, and since then, attempts to create legal restrictions on the teaching of evolution through hocus-pocus such as laws mandating “balanced treatment” of scientific and religious views in the science classroom? Who are the real “fascists” here?

      2. Lindberg,

        Creationist sites tend to have a tighter modertaion policy because we care to make our sites as family-friendly as possible. If you care to peruse the threads on Mr. Myers’ site, you’ll note that profanity, ridicule and insult are the norm. In fact, there is arguably little contribution to the thread apart from such commentary.

        Getting back to the original topic, I note that your scenario skips the part where creation science is outright banned from public schools entirely. The hypocritical element to all of this is that evolutionists began by asking for balanced treatment and now wish to legally exclude their opposition. While you condemn the efforts on our part to limit or restrict the exclusive monopoly of evolutionary theory in public schools, you must suppose there is one sauce for the goose and another for the gander when you enforce the exclusion in totality of creation science!

        The real fascists aren’t the ones trying to push for balanced treatment and academic freedom; it’s the fellows trying to enforce the exclusive, noncritical teaching of their theory in public schools under penalty of law.


  5. drlindberg says:

    You yourself have stated that “Flood geology is simply an interpretation of the geological record that is more consistent with the Bible.”

    Is a religiously-motivated interpretation (especially one that IGNORES most of the evidence and provides no useful explanation – e.g., an explanation that will lead to new discoveries) all that is required for something to be considered science?

    Is it unfair to require that for something to be taught in science class, some evidence should be provided that it IS science, rather that the educational authorities should be required to prove that flat-earthism, astrology, alchemy, “New Age” tripe, cold fusion, phrenology, geocentrism, whatever, is NOT science? Show evidence that it is science FIRST, then complain if it is discriminated against.

    Calling people fascists for not jumping every time you whistle seems a bit extreme. Who has been beat up? Who has been murdered? Who has been tortured? Do you have any idea what the real Fascists were like?

    So far, despite some years of looking, I have seem plenty of claims but no actual EVIDENCE that “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design theory” are science. I have for example, seen no reports of testing of their own claims, no articles providing evidence for their claims published in scientific journals, and no patents issued for useful devices or processes based on their principles.

    If I have missed something, could somebody please provide specific references (not just suggestions to search for myself through enormous websites or invitations to buy another book) to materials where I can be enlightened?

    Thank you!

    In the meantime, I’m sorry but I don’t see that it is unfair of me, or the educational authorities, to base our acceptance as to what is science on the findings of those actually doing the research.

    By the way, would you agree with the proposition that evangelicals are being fascists for not allowing pro-evolution scientists speak from their pulpits?

    1. Lindberg,

      You seem to have mastered the art of thatching together straw men! You ask me if a religiously-motivated interpretation is all that’s required for something to be science, but no one here has made such a claim!

      Having said that, it would be pure foolishness to suggest that the motivations behind an interpretation could determine whether or not that interpretation was scientific; likewise, it would be ignorant to suggest that the motivations behind an interpretation could automatically disqualify it from being scientific. Specifically, a religious motivation for an interpretation does not prevent it from being scientific; if you affirm this ridiculous sentiment, you’d have to throw out most of science, for the Bible-affirming founders of the scientific disciplines were religiously motivated, seeking to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

      One could argue that since religion is simply the quest to satisfy the great questions of the universe [Why am I here? Where am I going? Who am I? What is my purpose?], that evolutionary theory fulfills the requirements of religion for its adherents. Is a

      In any case, you have, ironically enough, IGNORED my protest that creation science does not ignore the evidence [for evidence is not self-explanatory] but rather provides an alternate explanation for the self-same evidence that evolutionists claim supports their theory. We do not disagree over observable biological change (e.g., mutation, variation, adaptation, speciation and natural selection [though we affirm the latter as a preservative force rather than Darwin’s creative force] within a created kind [which is generally found at the family taxon, so that a dog is still a dog and recognizeably so, be it a wolf, English bulldog or Australian shepherd]; we disagree over the unobservable claim of microbes-to-man evolution of one kind of organism into an entirely different kind. We do not disagree over observational science that is subject to the scientific method; we disagree over the naturalistic claims of origins science.

      Now, you demand that we define science in order to teach something in a science class, but the very definition of science is something that philosophers of science fiercely debate. Self-serving definitions of science have stated it in terms of pure naturalism; this is all well and good if supernatural agency was never responsible for anything. Of course, in terms of pure naturalism, science ceases to be the search for true answers, so much as the search for all-natural answers which may or may not be true, and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible!

      Furthermore, your premise of proving something to be science first is unscientific, for science can only falsify hypotheses; all scientific claims are provisionally true, subject to future falsifiability. Here it does no good to say that creation science is invalid because it refuses interpretations of evidence against creationism, for this is a double standard. As others have so aptly put it, “In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected. The same thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected.”

      But for the sake of fairness, why shouldn’t educational authorities be required to prove that flat-earthism, astrology, alchemy, “New Age” tripe, cold fusion, phrenology, geocentrism, whatever, is NOT science? Isn’t this implicit in teaching students how to discern for themselves the difference between claims that are scientific and those which are not?

      This is not to say that there is no evidence for creationism, because we have been over this point to the point where I am at a loss as to why you have neither acknowledged nor engaged my rebuttal.

      Now you state, amazingly enough that:

      “So far, despite some years of looking, I have seem plenty of claims but no actual EVIDENCE that “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design theory” are science. I have for example, seen no reports of testing of their own claims, no articles providing evidence for their claims published in scientific journals, and no patents issued for useful devices or processes based on their principles.”

      You ostrich, get your head out of the sand! Your willful ignorance is wretched on this point. You strongly and vehemently disagree on a subject you have only the faintest notion of! It is a canard to ask why creationist do not have their anti-evolutionist claims published in evolution science journals and we both know it. I have already directed you to the Answers Research Journal. I likewise direct your attention to the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal Avail yourself of these resources and cure yourself of the ignorant notion that creationists write no articles providing evidence for their claims in peer-reviewed journals! As for the assertion that no patents have been issued for useful devices or processes based on creation science principles, I challenge you to name one patent issued for a useful device or process based on microbes-to-man evolution science principles. In the meantime, know that creation scientists helped get men to the moon, invented the MRI, are responsible for scores of useful inventions and processes, and founded the major disciplines within science, including the biological sciences. Furthermore, know that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical worldview. Which places your proposition that creation science is somehow not science on a foundation of oh-so-thin muscovite.

      On a final note, I would not agree with the proposition that evangelicals are being fascists for not allowing pro-evolution scientists speak from their pulpits because the entire premise is ridiculous. We do in fact invite pro-evolution scientists to speak from our pulpits on a regular basis, but they always find cowardly excuses not to debate us.


  6. Doctor says:

    What do you think of the “literary framework” view of Genesis, held by church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo? Is this a valid view and, if so, would it permit evolution?

    1. Tony Breeden says:


      The framework hypothesis would reduce the Creation Account to a mere story meant to teach religious truth and nothing more. I have several reasons why I do not hold this as a valid view. I refer you to an excellent article on this subject co-written by a fellow literary apologists and friend, Tim Chaffey: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-hypothesis/

      Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I fund this comment buried in my filter today

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s