you're reading...
Christianity

Ken Ham: Christian Schools Aren’t Christian Enough

The Christian Post reports:  “Answers in Genesis President/CEO Ken Ham has new research showing that Christian institutions of higher learning have gone too far gone down the pathway of secularism and they need to be either totally overhauled or scrapped in favor of new biblically-sound schools.”

Coming from Ham, we know what this means.  Not enough people are teaching Young Earth Creationism.  And sure enough, that’s what the article goes on to say:  “Ham said the changes reflected in ARG’s 2010 data all started with a small crack in the colleges’ theology. That crack, he explained, is the way the institutions teach Genesis, the first book of the Bible.”

From this side of the fence, this is an encouraging article.  Ham may not be a good scientist (HA!  Understatement of the decade…) but he’s got a good grasp on the implications of rational thought applied to Biblical literalism.  Without the strong teaching of Genesis, it won’t be long before Christian students and faculty will be changing the Bible to accommodate other beliefs such as homosexuality and abortion, Ham argued.

Damn straight.  There’s a trap in biblical interpretation, and Ham is well aware of how it works.  If the Genesis story of creation is a myth, or a metaphor, or some kind of moral lesson to be interpreted, then why shouldn’t we at least ask whether anything — or everything — in the Bible is also metaphorical?  Why not ask if the entire Jesus story is a myth designed to teach us a lesson about sacrifice?  Why not ask if heaven and hell are metaphors for temporal rewards?

Biblical authority is on extremely shaky ground.  Either it’s a literal guidebook for science and moral living, or it’s not.  If it’s not, then each believer is free to interpret any and every word of the Bible in any way that makes sense to them.

Ham has guts.  We have to say that for him.  He’s taken on the most irrefutable proof that the Bible is in fact errant.  The world is not 6,000 years old.  It is much, much older.  And there was no “first human couple.”

Fortunately, most people aren’t quite as stubborn as Ken Ham.  Especially if they have any training in science, especially biology.  It’s kind of hard not to notice that 99.99% of all biologists in the world accept evolution.  Having studied biology in any depth, it’s hard not to notice that the entirety of the world’s bio-industry rests on the foundation of evolutionary theory.  And educators are noticing, even in Christian schools.

Biblical literalism is doomed.  The day is coming — and soon — when evolution will be as obvious to the average person as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the earth is spherical.  (Both facts with which a literal reading of the Bible disagrees…)  Rational people will be forced to admit that the Bible is not a literal account of creation.

However, we shouldn’t rest on our laurels and assume that this will be the death of Christianity, or the end of persecution for gays, or the end of attacks on women’s rights.  Many of the Bible’s claims are not as easy to refute as the creation myth.  How does one go about proving that there isn’t some sort of spiritual damage when one man touches another man’s penis?  Especially when we don’t have any way to even define a spirit, much less measure it.  A non-literal reading of the Bible still gives Christians plenty of ways to be unscientific bigots.

In a way, I’m kind of rooting for Ken Ham.  His version of reality is for imbeciles.  There’s no way to sugar coat this truth.  Fortunately, most people are not imbeciles, and the farther Answers in Genesis goes off the rails, the more it will become obvious to Joe Plumber.  And that’s a good thing.

Advertisements

Discussion

24 thoughts on “Ken Ham: Christian Schools Aren’t Christian Enough

  1. So the choices are only between the fundamentalist extremes of Young Earth Creationism and Atheism? False dichotomy, I think.

    Atheists are as ignorant as the Young Earth Fundies. Both just pick and choose what to believe.

    The Bible contains all types of literature. Just because some of it is metaphorical, doesn’t mean all of it is. That should go without saying. But I don’t expect objectivity from you anymore than Ken Ham. You both are settled in your beliefs!

    Posted by Darwin Joseph | May 7, 2011, 5:33 pm
  2. So the choices are only between the fundamentalist extremes of Young Earth Creationism and Atheism? False dichotomy, I think.

    I certainly didn’t say that, nor did I imply it. In fact, I made special mention of the fact that a rejection of the literal interpretation of the creation myth still leaves plenty of wiggle room for theists to continue being unscientific bigots.

    So no… definitely not a dichotomy between atheism and YEC.

    Just because some of it is metaphorical, doesn’t mean all of it is.

    It doesn’t necessitate that all of it is metaphorical. Neither does it preclude it. That’s the point.

    But I don’t expect objectivity from you anymore than Ken Ham. You both are settled in your beliefs!

    I am happy to admit I’m biased. Bias is not an indication of wrongness. It’s an indication of belief. Beliefs are evaluated objectively through falsification. I attempt to discover those claims about the universe which coincide with the evidence. I invite you to do the same, and reach your own conclusion. But I also reserve the right to point out any instance in which you are NOT going with the evidence.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 7, 2011, 6:26 pm
  3. Hey hamby,

    Sorry to use a comment to do this but I don’t know how else to get a hold of you. Do you still skype? I left you a message on skype a lonnnnng time ago. 🙂 Miss hearing from you. You can delete this comment instead of posting it on your site…

    But I do want to freak out on Darwin Joseph for his statement “Atheists are as ignorant as the Young Earth Fundies. Both just pick and choose what to believe.” So many things wrong with that statement argh! 😛 Anyways hope to hear from you.

    Posted by Sabbysu | May 7, 2011, 10:28 pm
  4. Question which of the two said the following, Blair Scott or Matt Dillahunty? “I just want to believe more true things and less untrue things.” Ether way, I think the point is still valid.

    Posted by Fey | May 8, 2011, 4:13 am
  5. A non-literal reading of the Bible still gives Christians plenty of ways to be unscientific bigots.

    That’s a good point–a guide to morality should challenge us to be less irrational, and more considerate of the well-being of others, not offer us excuses and rationalizations to do the exact opposite, or be so vague and open to interpretation that it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

    we don’t have any way to even define a spirit, much less measure it.

    We do have a way to define a spirit/soul/experiencer–as a fundamental entity which is a part of the furniture of the universe. This was our solution to electromagnetism–it was not explicable as a process, a function of physical structures, a systematic feature of complexity or anything of the sort, and so we had to create a new concept of electromagnetism as a fundamental entity to define it.

    Chalmers has argued for such a definition for conscious experience (http://consc.net/papers/facing.html), with the caveat that he’s arguing for a kind of naturalistic dualist. J.P. Moreland takes a similar approach in his works, with no such caveat.

    Now it could be that when the mind-body dualist speaks of conscious experience in this way, he’s making a category error. Maybe conscious experience is a process. But even if that’s the case, there is still a way to define it, which the spiritualist is free to use for his purposes, even if he isn’t correct in defining it that way.

    So the question is whether the way “spirit” is defined is correct, not whether there exists a way to define it.

    As for measuring it, we can subjectively differentiate between different degrees of certain types of conscious experience, such as pain, just as we can subjectively differentiate between different degrees of length, temperature, etc. That we cannot also make objective measurements of states of conscious experience could simply be an epistemic limitation.

    Posted by Ian | May 8, 2011, 11:47 am
  6. Hey Sabby!

    I haven’t used skype in a loonnnnng time. So… yeah. Facebook and Gmail are the easiest ways to get a hold of me. Check my Contact page on the top menu to make sure you’ve got the right addresses. If you’re still skyping, I could be talked into installing it on the new computer. I seem to have a distant memory of giving you my phone number once, but maybe I’m mistaken. Just catch me on gmail (there’s chat on there, and you can sometimes catch me while I’m writing) and I’ll hook you up. 🙂

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 8, 2011, 1:32 pm
  7. Fey, I’m pretty sure that was Matt Dillahunty. But yeah, it hardly matters. I’m pretty sure every speaker there holds the same sentiment.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 8, 2011, 1:33 pm
  8. Ian:

    Inadequately short comment, cause I have errands to run: We have done something similar with dark matter — defining it before discovering it. However, and this is a CRUCIAL point, in both the case of electromagnetism and dark matter, we observed an empirical, quantifiable effect for which there was not an apparent cause. Such is not the case for souls. They’re an answer to a question that hasn’t been asked.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 8, 2011, 1:35 pm
  9. The best thing about people like Ham or Dembski or Craig is that they’re self defeating.

    I was hesitent to include Craig because he tries to pawn off as this informed Christian philosopher BS.

    Where as with Dembski, is a little less than Craig by simply invoking something that doesn’t need to be invoked.

    The latter two at least try to incorporate science/philosophy into theology, and failing miserably, but they do like to throw around big words and numbers. [Dembski is a mathematician and Craig is a philosopher.]

    With people like Ham and AIG, it;s a little easier to see through the BS.

    Ham, who I believe has an environmental biology degree, is just discarding science all together. Soon that will be his demise, as even Craig and Dembski can refute many of Ham’s claims.

    I say the best thing that happened to the atheist movement is Ken Ham or Kent Hovind opening their mouths.

    It shows the absurdity of literal Christianity.

    People like Ken Miller [what’s it with all the Kens?] help too by slowly leading them off of creationism, which could be a step to atheism. While Miller may not throw out the baby with the bath water, it’s a good chance others will.

    Just like conspiracy theorist. At least they’re trying thermite bombs as opposed to lizard UFO rays to bring down the twin towers.

    Somewhat plausiable, but not enough.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 8, 2011, 4:53 pm
  10. I say the best thing that happened to the atheist movement is Ken Ham or Kent Hovind opening their mouths.

    It shows the absurdity of literal Christianity.

    I agree, with the caveat that we live in a country where it’s ok to ridicule them for opening their mouths. In a country without free speech and press, the same kind of absurdity could gain serious traction. So keeping church and state separate is of supreme importance.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 8, 2011, 5:39 pm
  11. Bill wrote:

    in both the case of electromagnetism and dark matter, we observed an empirical, quantifiable effect for which there was not an apparent cause.

    And this is why consciousness is such a bitch of a problem. Our experience of it is very different than the kind of exteroceptive experience that discoveries like dark matter and electromagnetism are based on. Instead of an observer experiencing something outside of himself, we have the observer experiencing what it is like to be an observer.

    So while your objection would be pretty damning to any putative fundamental entity which was not based on an inherently proprietary observation, when applied to consciousness, if you take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, I think it would lock us into heterophenomenology.

    Such is not the case for souls. They’re an answer to a question that hasn’t been asked.

    The question is, “How do we explain conscious experience?”

    I don’t think the problem is whether the soul or spirit are an answer to a real question, or whether they’re adequately defined. The problem is in the specific explanation theists give, and perhaps more importantly, their methodological approach to defining and understanding consciousness.

    Posted by Ian | May 8, 2011, 9:21 pm
  12. Cptpineapple wrote:

    I was hesitent to include Craig because he tries to pawn off as this informed Christian philosopher BS.

    I would not include Craig with the likes of Dembski, and especially not Ham. Philosophers like Craig and Plantinga actually contribute to human knowledge. They publish in peer-reviewed philosophy journals, and not just on subjects specific to theism. And however wrong they are, they’re at least making arguments that aren’t fuckall retarded. They understand rationality, and they’re teaching it to people who are in desperate need of it.

    Posted by Ian | May 8, 2011, 9:33 pm
  13. And this is why consciousness is such a bitch of a problem. Our experience of it is very different than the kind of exteroceptive experience that discoveries like dark matter and electromagnetism are based on. Instead of an observer experiencing something outside of himself, we have the observer experiencing what it is like to be an observer.

    I feel like you’re mixing disciplines to your detriment. You’re right: An experience is a different kind of thing than a lightning bolt — at least to an observer. And that is a fairly serious problem for a philosopher. However, for a scientist, it’s more of a non-issue…

    The question is, “How do we explain conscious experience?”

    An evolutionary biologist explains consciousness like this: Living organisms respond to their environments because they contain highly reactive chemical structures that undergo specific predictable changes in the presence of specific environmental triggers. The eye is one such structure: The chemicals in the eye react nearly instantaneously to electromagnetic waves in a specific frequency range.

    Built on a foundation of basic “detection” and “response” mechanisms, organisms developed more and more complex systems. Among the most notable was prediction — the tendency for past experiences to make semi-permanent changes to the organism such that future behavior is altered. Eventually, response and prediction became much more complex, and organisms began to make predictions about the nature of their prediction-making capacity. We humans call this “consciousness.”

    Of course, that explanation is insufficient for a philosopher. It’s not a philosophical answer. It’s a cause-effect answer, which is precisely what science is supposed to do. And there’s no soul in it. There’s no need for a soul, since chemical processes are sufficient and Occam demands that we not add an extra feature.

    So my analogy was perfectly valid: For dark matter, electromagnetism, and consciousness, we observed an empirical effect for which we did not know a cause. In the case of consciousness, we observed: These creatures are displaying dynamic response to their environment, predictive abilities, emotions, and self-awareness. We then asked: How did this happen?

    The answer was the evolution of brain and sense organs. Which is explained by science in precisely the same way as electromagnetism. (And presumably dark matter, when we find it.)

    All the while, philosophers are sitting on the side asking themselves: “Yes, but what IS consciousness, and how do we quantify it and describe the subjective experience of being conscious?

    And it’s a great question — but it’s not a strictly scientific question. So you’re asking scientists to suddenly become philosophers. Which isn’t their job. They’ve done their job already. Your job as a philosopher is to assign it subjective meaning.

    I don’t think the problem is whether the soul or spirit are an answer to a real question, or whether they’re adequately defined. The problem is in the specific explanation theists give, and perhaps more importantly, their methodological approach to defining and understanding consciousness.

    Well, yes. These are problems. But it’s also a problem when a non-theist makes the same mistake and asserts that there is (or ought to be) some sort of non-physical fundamental underlying consciousness just because the experience of consciousness is an emergent process which can be perceived (as a PROCESS… that’s very important.) through time.

    I believe you’ve made a basic category error, Ian. Consciousness is a process, in the same way that life is a process. Processes are not physical. They are algorithms moving through time. When we look at a puppy and say, “Look… it’s life! Isn’t it beautiful!”… we’re actually being imprecise. A puppy is a living organism. Life is the process the puppy is moving through in time. Processes do not need non-physical building blocks.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 9, 2011, 1:14 pm
  14. In the case of consciousness, we observed: These creatures are displaying dynamic response to their environment, predictive abilities, emotions, and self-awareness. We then asked: How did this happen?

    That’s not my position. Note that you’re talking about an observer observing a process from a third person perspective–what I’m interested in explaining is the first-person experience of the observer’s own consciousness.

    There’s no need for a soul, since chemical processes are sufficient and Occam demands that we not add an extra feature.

    Here’s the problem–when you and I say the word “consciousness,” we’re talking about two entirely different things. You’re talking about the following (taken from Chalmer’s paper, Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness):

    the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
    the integration of information by a cognitive system;
    the reportability of mental states;
    the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
    the focus of attention;
    the deliberate control of behavior;
    the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

    In other words, the easy problem of consciousness. What I’m talking about is:

    The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.

    It’s not a category error or mixing disciplines to distinguish between these different meanings of consciousness. Conscious experience is something extra, an observation above and beyond what your process model predicts.

    the experience of consciousness is an emergent process which can be perceived (as a PROCESS… that’s very important.) through time.

    What you mean by “perceived” here is “experienced.” In other words, you’re saying that, “the experience of consciousness is something which can be experienced.”

    It’s circular. You’re describing things that we are conscious of, that we do experience, which are processes, but I think you’re presupposing that the processes automatically entail experience.

    This “something it is like to be” is not a process. That’s why we need a new fundamental entity to describe it.

    Posted by Ian | May 9, 2011, 3:51 pm
  15. Ian, I get it. I promise I do. I understand the philosophical problem with describing consciousness as an experience. But that doesn’t change the base of my position:

    The questions: What is Dark Matter? What is Electromagnetism? What is Consciousness? These are all the same kind of question. Yes, I am using the word “consciousness” in a scientific way — I am looking for an external description of what a thing is when we say it is conscious. What does it do? What causes it to happen?

    The question: What is consciousness? When it means “What IS the quale?” This is a different kind of question. It’s a great question, and deserves a good answer. But it’s not asking about the physical processes that make (or evolved) a brain. It’s asking what it’s like to be conscious.

    When you propose a “fundamental” for consciousness, you are either:
    1) Proposing an empirical, scientifically testable thing — like dark matter — which “builds” consciousness.
    OR
    2) Superimposing a scientific explanation on a subjective question of perception.

    If (1), then you’re mistaking an algorithm for matter/energy/space/time. If (2), then you’re permitting one side (the soul advocates) to demand an inconsistent treatment of the kind of question being asked. You’re allowing special pleading.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 9, 2011, 4:01 pm
  16. If (1), then you’re mistaking an algorithm for matter/energy/space/time.

    Other than perhaps quibbling over the meaning of “builds” here, (1) would characterize my position. But as you noted, I’m asking “What IS the quale?” I’m not interested in “What is the algorithm?” So I don’t see how I can be accused of making a category error here.

    What I’m curious about why you don’t think this question, “What IS the quale?” is a question we can answer by “looking for an external description of what a thing is when we say it is [a quale].”

    If it’s a legitimate question, and if it’s not the same question as, “What is the algorithm?” then someone ought to come up with a rational explanation for it, instead of leaving it to the supernaturalists. Coming up with a scientific explanation for qualia will be quite a daunting task, of course, but giving it an adequate definition is the first step toward getting us there.

    Posted by Ian | May 9, 2011, 5:23 pm
  17. What I’m curious about why you don’t think this question, “What IS the quale?” is a question we can answer by “looking for an external description of what a thing is when we say it is [a quale].”

    It’s special pleading, or a category error. At least, if such a thing is going to be described as a matter/energy/space/time “thing.” A quale is going to be something akin to a meme — an analog, or a metaphor. It will be “like” things in the m/e/s/t realm, and behave similarly — in the same way that a meme emulates a gene, but is not a “thing” in the same sense.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 9, 2011, 5:48 pm
  18. I do agree that if we tried to describe conscious experience (C) within the hierarchy of matter/energy/space/time physical phenomena, as a fundamental entity akin to electromagnetism or dark energy, that would be a category error (but it would still be physicalism). Naturalistic dualism would describe C as an entity which exists at the top of the hierarchy, alongside the other major entities, i.e. M/E/S/T/C.

    As for explaining C as a kind of analog or meme, I think the concept you described is essential to understanding why there are non-arbitrary relationships between C and other fundamental entities–why a certain neuronal oscillation should be experienced as “pleasure” and another as “pain” (harmonic and non-harmonic frequencies, perhaps?), and all the other varieties of qualia.

    But to end there is to prematurely terminate the explanation. Unless you can explain how instantiating such a thing in terms of physical properties would suggest C as a feature or outcome of your process, you’re presupposing that your analogs are imbued with an experience-property. The model must predict what we observe. Your model consists of physical entities and relationships between them, and while that could conceivably describe any process or feature of complexity we could imagine, it doesn’t suggest that there should emerge or be involved with this something as curious as C.

    If physical properties, processes, or an analog instantiated in physical processes can’t get us into the ballpark of explaining C, that’s a clear sign that C is something very unlike a physical entity or property. The solution then should be to let our conceptual understanding of C define a new fundamental entity, and let that be the context in which it is meaningful for an analog can be experienced.

    Posted by Ian | May 9, 2011, 8:25 pm
  19. Wow! Great comments!

    Posted by Fey | May 10, 2011, 7:03 pm
  20. As for explaining C as a kind of analog or meme, I think the concept you described is essential to understanding why there are non-arbitrary relationships between C and other fundamental entities–why a certain neuronal oscillation should be experienced as “pleasure” and another as “pain” (harmonic and non-harmonic frequencies, perhaps?), and all the other varieties of qualia.

    And this is precisely where theists go wrong in proposing a “soul” as a fundamental of consciousness. If we recognize C as a “higher” (I prefer the word “emergent,” but whatever…) category of m/e/s/t, we do consign ourselves to a form of naturalist dualism — which is fine, but it doesn’t help theists who want to “philosophize” a supernatural soul into existence.

    The theist “soul” is properly described as a lower category, belonging somewhere in the neighborhood of quanta. (Not qualia.)

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 10, 2011, 7:39 pm
  21. Certainly that’s the traditional view, but you tend to find more diversity among theists nowadays. Some of them even adopt a kind of non-reductive physicalism, in which case I suppose the idea of a “soul” is more a metaphor or emergent property than anything (they do still believe in an afterlife, though).

    Then there are theists like Moreland, who reject physicalism but who do rise above the more naive arguments against it. I haven’t read enough of his work on consciousness to say whether his interpretation fits the traditional quanta concept–based on what I have read, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it did–but he is at least interacting with what’s going on in contemporary philosophy of mind.

    But ultimately, I see this issue as similar to the problem of free will. Suppose determinism is true–even so, the matter is abstruse enough that anyone who hasn’t invested much time into the study of it (most people!) can easily conclude that determinism necessarily denies personal responsibility. Particularly when atheists reject compatibilism, as Sam Harris does, without giving much consideration to the arguments in favor of it.

    However we define what people mean by words like “free will” and “spirit,” I think we need to give consideration to the the philosophical work on the issues (which I know you do), and also what people are trying to communicate with these words. By “spirit,” I think most people are to some extent referring to C, even if they’ve naively defined it.

    Posted by Ian | May 11, 2011, 2:05 pm
  22. However we define what people mean by words like “free will” and “spirit,” I think we need to give consideration to the the philosophical work on the issues (which I know you do), and also what people are trying to communicate with these words. By “spirit,” I think most people are to some extent referring to C, even if they’ve naively defined it.

    You bring up a great point, which I think goes along with my little platitude about cosmology: Who are you going to believe? Hawking, whose CV is twenty pages long, all of it cosmology and astrophysics, or Ken Ham, who read the Bible once?

    The salient point is that you are correct — almost nobody (atheists included) has spent much time or effort on the finer points of defining things like “free will” and “spirit.” And while I certainly respect the philosophers who do spend their time on such subjects, I refuse to cater to the average Christian who cannot even articulate the basics of “C” — which they ostensibly base their entire life around. These situations are equivalent:

    1) Joe Schmoe Says: “Dude… did you know that the big bang was the opposite of a black hole for a tiny little bit of time? It was a WHITE HOLE. It’s like anti-matter, only in a black hole. And like… backwards time.”
    2) Joe Christian Says: “Friend, God has given us the gift of free will, and in our spirit we know that he is real, and we know that we will survive this life if we accept his mercy and forgiveness of sin.”

    It’s possible that both of these statements refer to things which can be defined adequately. However, I owe neither of these people the philosophical time of day if they can’t do it themselves. That is — the potential coherency of the argument is not an argument for coherency.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 2:27 pm
  23. I really want to know what methodology liberal Christians use to determine which parts of the bible to read allegorically and which parts to read literally.

    As far as I can tell, the only methodology seems to be whatever can be read literally that will let them still call themselves a Christian.

    As an example, the resurrection of Jesus is just as absurd as his virgin birth. Yet one is taken as literal far more than the other by liberal Christians.

    Posted by J. Quinton | May 11, 2011, 4:09 pm
  24. Far more? There are really a lot of Christians who buy one but not the other? I’m from the deep south, and we don’t get a lot of that down here.

    But yeah, your point is well made. I think one aspect of it is — ironically — science. Until well into the Middle Ages, many people took the Bible at its word when it said the earth was flat. Next they took it at face value that the heavens move and the earth stands still. Next, they believed there was a real Garden of Eden, and that the earth was 6000 years old.

    And on and on and on.

    The beliefs that tend to retain their literal interpretation are those which are most difficult or impossible to falsify. Heaven and hell? Sure. No way to prove it. Souls? Sure. Jesus really living? Sure. But that whole exodus thing… hmmmm… a little harder to stomach. The flood? The ark? Nah…

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 4:36 pm

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: