Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

Peter

You wrote;
Isn't debate always about differing perspectives, research, experiences and
> the like?
>
Yes I totally and utterly agree with that. But that does not mean that you
can put forward nonsense and expect to get away with it.

More seriously you also wrote ;
 I have no interest in discussing anything remotely ad hominem. So the
> questions about lies and lying etc are really unwelcome.

The second part is very serious, as when people are lying or making false
accusations or simply repeating false arguments when they have been exposed
as false, this has to be dealt with and stopped to ensure that a reasonable
debate can take place.

Take the peppered moth, which I do not find a convincing proof of evolution
at all. Kettlewell's simple story has long since been modified - see RJ
Berry (CIS at Edinburgh) discussion in his Inheritance and Natural History
published in 1978 and 1990/1 paper on the moth-eaten moth.

We have below Wells' accusation of fraud by Kettlewell due to the posed
nature of his photographs. That was the only way he could produce such
photographs unless he had the limitless resources of David Attenborough and
his TV crew and the technology available 30-40 years later. This is a false
and wicked accusation and those who repeat it or condone it are no better.
In my bible the 9th commandment reads "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
which condemns all those who do. I begin to wonder if the bibles sold by
YECs and IDers do not have the "not" removed rather like the wicked bible of
the 17th century. The "not" was omitted form the 7th commandment and the
poor publisher ended up in jail!

If Wells were unique that would be less worrying, but this seems to be the
systematic practice, unintentional I hope, of so much YEC and ID literature.

Just consider the continual misquoting and misrepresentation of radiometric
work on the Hawaiian lava of 1801, claiming it gives dates up to 3 billion
years. If one reads the papers this comes from it is soon apparent that the
researchers were testing how reliable radiometric age-dating was, and where
certain types of rock cannot be used.

A little more on this;
A commonly cited example is lavas from Hawaii, which were "dated" in the
60s. 'In 1968 scientists applied radiometric dating to some rocks which
known to be less than 170 years old. [1801 eruption on Hualalai.] The
radioactive ages determined for those 170 year-old rocks ranged from 160
million to 3 billion years.' (Ackermann 1991 p81) Ackermann then commented,
'Obviously, something is wrong with this method.' However if one reads the
paper cited[1] a very different picture emerges. The material dated were
ultramafic inclusions in the lava, which were mantle material and not lava.
The geochronologist Brent Dalrymple (a witness at Arkansas in 1981) made
this clear in 1982, but the Hualalai example is still cited today.
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/cause.asp. During these 25 years
Dalrymple's criticisms were simply ignored.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Funkhouser and Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic
Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal for Geophysical Research 73, No 14 4601-7)

Those who misquote all this include Morris, Monty white,and many others. Can
anyone explain why they still cite this 25 years after Dalrymple exploded
it?

With the incessant misquotation and misrepresentation by so many these
question of false accusations , misrepresentation must be faced and
answered. It is bringing the whole Gospel into disrepute.

Michael

PS Who cares about upholding Darwinian evolution, I don't!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

>
>
>
> I apologise for the late return to this topic - but part of my delay is
> that
> I was at Leeds University for some of their HPS Conference 'Darwinism
> after
> Darwin'.
>
> I'd call your attention to Prof Steve Fuller's paper at that conference &
> abstracted here - "Giving Darwin a decent burial"... the Abstract closes
> with these words - "I conclude that rather than continuing to venerate
> Darwin, even though he would find relatively little of contemporary
> biological research relevant to his own studies, we would do better - in
> time for his 200th anniversary - to retire Darwin as The Last Great
> Historicist, who has earned a place alongside Marx and Freud more for
> reasons of cultural iconicity than scientific relevance."
>
> http://www.darwinismafterdarwin.com/conferenceprogramming/abstracts.html
>
> To return to The Peppered Moth discussion:
>
> It seems to be fairly clear from some recent post what's going on in this
> discussion. It looks as if there's a deep antipathy to anything that isn't
> part of a Darwinian world-view: anything which suggests there may be a
> deficiency in the empirical base of neo-Darwinism is to be greeted with
> ridicule. Fine. Let others read the now well trodden Peppered Moth
> evidence
> and make up their own minds in that regard.
>
> For a credible popular journal, the item by Wells in published in "The
> Scientist" - Volume 13 May 1999 and reproduced here may be useful to
> those
> who are interested in discussion
> http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm
>
> The generalisation - below - that wants to sweep away, for example, The
> Discovery Institute in terms of ID, is such a wild assertion that I'd be
> surprised if any reasonable person will give such a totalitarian swipe
> house-room.
>
> In terms of the narrower debate about The Peppered Moth, and the original
> Majerus paper reported in The Independent August 25th, there is a strong
> indication of what motivates this debate - at least from Majerus'
> standpoint: the classical Peppered Moth story has become a proxy for
> debunking Theism.
>
> Here's some concluding words from Majerus: The "fact of Darwinian
> evolution"
> shows that humans invented God and that there will be "no second coming;
> no
> helping hand from on high."
>
> Quoted from pages 9 & 10 of the pdf linked below.
>
> http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf
>
> Is that bold claim actually a credible sequitur?
>
>
> My first post August 31st on this related topic of "Who says that
> 'science'
> is neutral wrt to Theism?" (and neatly vindicated by Majerus I propose)
> referenced this contemporary statement by Jonathan Wells -
>
> "Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would
> demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportions of two varieties in
> a
> pre-existing species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those
> varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in
> the
> first place."
>
> Is that not precisely the case? Variation has little to with origination.
> All plant and animal breeders know that there are limits to change.
> Shouldn't the debate be concerned with the origination of new forms?
>
> Did none (zero) of the dark form exist prior to the Industrial Revolution?
> Did only the light form exist prior to the Industrial Revolution? Why are
> we
> surprised that there is variation within limits? And why are 'we' taking
> up
> a story about variation when it's not the important question anyway?
>
> Are you seriously reasoning, with Majerus, that the whole of Evolution in
> the grand scheme of things as Darwin proposed it, stands on this small
> debatable little piece of English natural history as tracked through the
> Industrial revolution? To quote Majerus "It provides after all The Proof
> of
> Evolution".
>
> Perhaps that is why this 'moth-eaten' story matters - so much is invested
> in
> so little. And it must be defended. But that there is so much to and fro
> in
> debate suggests to me that such a grand Darwinian edifice is at risk of
> being seen to be poorly supported by the evidence?
>
> Blessings
>
> Peter
>
> PS - I have no interest in discussing anything remotely ad hominem. So the
> questions about lies and lying etc are really unwelcome.
>
> It is far too easy to find someone or thing that one disagrees with, and
> cite credible references on both sides, only to throw stones at those who
> hold a different position from one's own. To then seek to deprecate
> someone
> doesn't' come in the best Christian traditions does it?
>
> Isn't debate always about differing perspectives, research, experiences
> and
> the like?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of James Mahaffy
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:00 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>
>
> Michael,
>
> I have found Art Chadwick to be a man of integrity. As you may know he
> was
> the one who showed that there were problems with the YEC data of
> angiosperm
> pollen from the PreCambrian. [1981. Chadwick, A.V. Precambrian Pollen in
> the Grand Canyon -- a reexamination. Origins. 8:7-12.] showing fairly
> clearly that they were contaminants.
>
> May I suggest if you think there are problems or inaccuracies on what he
> has
> posted about the Peppered moths, he would be happy to talk to you. But
> the
> Christian principle would I think be to approach him directly and not tell
> Alexanian to do so.
>
> I have looked briefly into the peppered moth story a long time ago and
> there
> were some problem with the way the study was done or what was not said
> about
> pictures. I would have to read the article and talk to an entomologists
> before I made a critique of the article. I am just suggesting it had some
> problems.
>
> bcc to Art
> --
>
> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> 498 4th Ave NE
> Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>
>>>> On 9/4/2007 at 1:05 AM, in message
> <20070904064029.231FD711A4A@gray.dordt.edu>,
> "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am pleased you don't believe in lying. Thus I can rely on you to
> persuade
>> Art Chadwick to remove his false accusations about the Peppered Moth.
>> Otherwise you are condoning lying.
>>
>>
>> Michael
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>> Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:22 PM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>
>>
>>> My post answered your question. No, I do not believe in lying for any
>>> reason whatsoever. There is no path to God except through Jesus the
>>> Christ. Any other claim is contrary to Scripture, and in my opinion,
>>> false.
>>>
>>>
>>> Moorad
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
>>> Sent: Mon 9/3/2007 2:08 AM
>>> To: Alexanian, Moorad
>>> Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moorad
>>>
>>> You have not considered Wells' false accusations and side-stepped the
>>> question. Does this mean you think it is permissible to lie for the
>>> Kingdom
>>> of God or for Mr Moon?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>>> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>>> Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:44 AM
>>> Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>>
>>>
>>> I have not read Icons of Evolution but my understanding is that Wells
>>> documented some goofs the advocated of evolutionary theory had made.
>>> However, I do agree that one cannot use, say, the Piltdown fiasco as
> proof
>>> that evolutionary theory is wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moorad
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
>>> Sent: Sun 9/2/2007 4:39 PM
>>> To: PvM; Peter Loose
>>> Cc: George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad; AmericanScientificAffiliation
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Presumably everyone on this list claims to be a Christian and thus has
>>> high
>>> ethical standards, including those of not lying and not falsely accuses
>>> others.
>>>
>>> This makes it crystal clear that Wells is making false accusations and
> has
>>> been doing so for at least 8 years. If DI ARN or any other ID set-up had
>>> any
>>> moral integrity they would have forced Wells to retract this charge. As
>>> they
>>> have not surely we can conclude that this is morally acceptable to them.
>>>
>>> Will Moorad, James (M) and Peter now condemn Wells for this type of
>>> thing
>
>>> or
>>> do they also think it morally acceptable?
>>>
>>> I am still waiting patiently for some honesty to emanate from the
>>> leaders
>
>>> of
>>> YEC and ID. (Yes, I know Wells is not YEC)
>>>
>>> Michael
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
>>> To: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
>>> Cc: "Gregory Arago" <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>; "Janice Matchett"
>>> <janmatch@earthlink.net>; "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>;
>>> "Alexanian,
>>> Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>; "AmericanScientificAffiliation"
>>> <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am very familiar as to Wells' so called 'responses' to his critics,
>>>> which most often fail to address, as is the case with so many of the
>>>> ID proponents, the arguments raised.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that people read the reviews, read the relevant papers, read
>>>> the attempts by Wells to explain his flawed arguments and everyone can
>>>> come to their own conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> However, Icons of Evolution, PIGDID are examples of poorly written
>>>> descriptions of science. Of course, from a perspective which seeks to
>>>> destroy Darwinism, I'd say that the books can be understood best.
>>>>
>>>> Until people stop taking the Discovery Institute seriously as a
>>>> reliable source of scientific information, we will continue to see how
>>>> people will inevitably be confused, and disappointed when confronted
>>>> with the facts.
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested in discussing a particular claim or example
>>>> cited by Wells, please present it and we can explore how well his
>>>> claim holds up in light of the evidence?
>>>>
>>>> Peppered Moth, Cambrian, Haeckel, Archaeopteryx... I'll let you chose.
>>>> It may be a very educational exercise to explore the depth of the
>>>> scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design arguments. As Christians, we
>>>> should then determine if we are willing to support a movement which
>>>> seems to be by all credible accounts, lacking in scientific relevance
>>>> and which seems to be theologically risky.
>>>>
>>>> Wells would make for an excellent example as I am quite familiar with
>>>> many of musings as well as with the actual status of scientific
>>>> knowledge and research in these area. Especially, the peppered moth...
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone remember that Wells used to claim that the peppered moth
>>>> does not rest on tree trunks? Later, Wells corrected his flaw by
>>>> adding do not normally rest on tree trunks, even though again, the
>>>> data did not support his thesis.
>>>>
>>>> <quote> Wells:
>>>>
>>>> BUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING MAJERUS, HAS KNOWN SINCE THE 1980'S THAT
>>>> PEPPERED MOTHS DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS IN THE WILD. This means that
>>>> every time those staged photographs have been re-published since the
>>>> 1980's constitutes a case of deliberate scientific fraud. Michael
>>>> Majerus is being dishonest, and textbook-writers are lying to biology
>>>> students. The behavior of these people is downright scandalous.
>>>>
>>>> I know what I'm talking about. I spent much of last summer reading the
>>>> primary literature (email me if you want the references). Frankly, I
>>>> was shocked by what I found -- not only that the evidence for the
>>>> moths' true resting-places has been known since the 1980's, but also
>>>> that people like Majerus and Miller continue to deceive the public.
>>>>
>>>> Fraud is fraud. It's time to tell it like it is.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed... Ironically, these were the messages Wells posted to ASA a
> while
>>>> ago...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html
>>>>
>>>> Has Wells retracted his claims of 'fraud'? Does Wells indeed know what
>>>> he is talking about? The primary literature does not seem to agree
>>>> with him much, certainly most of the experts on the peppered moth have
>>>> argued that Wells does not know what he is talking about (Majerus,
>>>> Bruce Grant)
>>>>
>>>> Bruce Grant
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> To put them in context, the material quoted below is a copy of the
>>>> correspondence between Grant and a professional colleague who had
>>>> requested Grant's views on Wells' chapter, originally written February
>>>> 7, 2001.
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Wells's Chapter on Peppered Moths
>>>>
>>>> Wells's Chapter 7 is pretty similar to his earlier ms. "Second
>>>> thoughts about peppered moths" that he posted on the web, and
>>>> published in abridged form in The Scientist. I sent you my comments
>>>> about that version about two weeks ago. My general reaction to this
>>>> latest version is about the same. He distorts the picture, but
>>>> unfortunately he is probably pretty convincing to people who really
>>>> don't know the primary literature in this field. He uses two tactics.
>>>> One is the selective omission of relevant work. The other is to
>>>> scramble together separate points so doubts about one carry over to
>>>> the other. Basically, he is dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> He immediately launches the claim "that peppered moths in the wild
>>>> don't even rest on tree trunks" (p. 138). This is just plain wrong! Of
>>>> course they rest on tree trunks, but it's not their exclusive resting
>>>> site. He quotes Cyril Clarke's lack of success in finding the moths in
>>>> natural settings, but he omits mentioning Majerus' data which reports
>>>> just where on trees (exposed trunks, unexposed trunks, trunk/branch
>>>> joints, branches) Majerus has found moths over his 34 years of looking
>>>> for them. Of the 47 moths he located away from moth traps, 12 were on
>>>> trunks (that's &gt;25%). Of the 203 he found in the vicinities of
>>>> traps, 70 were on trunks (that's 34%). Based on his observations,
>>>> Majerus argued that the most common resting site appears to be at the
>>>> trunk/branch juncture. What is clear from his data is that they sit
>>>> all over the trees, INCLUDING the trunks. So what? Kettlewell's
>>>> complementary experiments in polluted and unpolluted woods compared
>>>> the relative success of different colored moths on the same parts of
>>>> trees in different areas, not different parts of trees in the same
>>>> area. It is true that the photos showing the moths on trunks are posed
>>>> (just like practically all wildlife pictures of insects are) but they
>>>> are not fakes. No one who reads Kettlewell's paper in which the
>>>> original photos appeared would get the impression from the text that
>>>> these were anything but posed pictures. He was attempting to compare
>>>> the differences in conspicuousness of the pale and dark moths on
>>>> different backgrounds. Nobody thought he encountered those moths like
>>>> that in the wild. At their normal densities, you'd be hard pressed
>>>> ever to find two together unless they were copulating. I have always
>>>> made a point of stating in photo captions that the moths are posed,
>>>> and I think textbook writers have been careless about this. But they
>>>> are not frauds.
>>>>
>>>> On the subject of lichens, no one has questioned their importance
>>>> more than I have. But what does Wells do with this? He quotes me, but
>>>> he doesn't include what else I said has happened on the Wirral (p.
>>>> 147) with respect to the tremendous expansion of birch stands since
>>>> the enactment of the smokeless zones. Kettlewell, too, argued that
>>>> peppered moths are well concealed on birch bark (even without
>>>> lichens). Wells continues (p. 148) to quote my reservations about
>>>> lichens in Michigan, but, again, he omits any reference to the data I
>>>> presented in that paper showing the decline, not only in SO2, but in
>>>> atmospheric particles (soot) which has been established as a factor
>>>> altering reflectance from the surface of tree bark. So, while I have
>>>> questioned the importance of lichens, I have not taken this as
>>>> evidence that crypsis is unimportant. Wells omits this entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Wells continues to bring up the same old arguments about
>>>> mysterious other factors (yet to be identified) that account for the
>>>> persistence of typicals in polluted regions, and the presence of
>>>> melanics in unpolluted locales. He cites papers written back in the
>>>> 70s about these puzzles. He omits discussing in any sophisticated way
>>>> the role of migration other than to say "Theoretical models could
>>>> account for the discrepancies only by invoking migration...." (p.146),
>>>> as if in desperation we are forced to grasp at straws. Of course
>>>> migration is important. Majerus actually reviews this point fairly
>>>> well by comparing the smoothness of clines in melanism between species
>>>> that are highly mobile (as is Biston), and species that are relatively
>>>> sedentary. Instead of showing his meaningless map of the UK (Fig. 7-2)
>>>> to illustrate what he regards as anomalies in the distribution of
>>>> melanism and lichens, why doesn't he show the before and after
>>>> comparison from the national surveys by Kettlewell in 1956, and the
>>>> survey by Grant et al. in 1996. (If you'd like, I can send you a jpg
>>>> file of the maps I mean.)
>>>>
>>>> Wells also inappropriately uses thermal melanism in ladybirds to
>>>> suggest, that while no one has shown this in peppered moths (p. 152),
>>>> industrial melanism can have other causes besides predation. It's not
>>>> just that there is no evidence for thermal melanism in peppered moths,
>>>> there is evidence AGAINST thermal melanism based on the geographic
>>>> incidence of melanism in the UK, the USA, and Europe. There are no
>>>> latitudinal clines, and no altitudinal clines as one might expect with
>>>> thermal melanism. Wells knows this, if he actually read my papers. (He
>>>> cites them, so I should assume he read them.) He also raises the
>>>> question of larval tolerance to pollutants. There is no evidence for
>>>> this, either. I have a paper out on this point, but in fairness to
>>>> Wells, it came out just this past year.
>>>>
>>>> Wells clouds discussions with irrelevancies. For examples he
>>>> brings up Heslop Harrison (p. 141 and again on p. 151) and the
>>>> question of phenotypic induction. Wells makes it sound as if most
>>>> biologists discount induction based on their belief in natural
>>>> selection (as if it were a popular religious question). The evidence
>>>> for the Mendelian inheritance of melanism in peppered moths has
>>>> nothing to do with evolutionary theory; it is based on old fashioned
>>>> crosses involving over 12 thousand progeny from 83 broods. The
>>>> Mendelian basis for this character in this species is as well
>>>> established as is any character in any species. Wells doesn't mention
>>>> this, yet he cites my review paper where I do bring this up in my
>>>> criticism of Sargent et al. Induction has nothing to do with
>>>> industrial melanism, and Wells knows it. Again, selective omissions on
>>>> the part of Wells.
>>>>
>>>> On page 151 Wells claims Kettlewell's evidence has been impeached.
>>>> This is nonsense. It has not. But I have argued, that even if it were
>>>> entirely thrown out, the evidence for natural selection comes from the
>>>> changes in the percentages of pale and melanic moths. It is this
>>>> record of change in allele frequency over time that is unimpeachable.
>>>> It is a massive record by any standard. (I can send a jpg file with
>>>> graphs, if you'd like.) I have pointed out, and he quotes me, that no
>>>> force known to science can account for these changes except for
>>>> natural selection. Yet, he scrambles the ingredients here. He claims
>>>> (top of p. 153) "...it is clear that the compelling evidence for
>>>> natural selection that biologists once thought they had in peppered
>>>> moths no longer exists." Of course the evidence for natural selection
>>>> exists! That evidence is overwhelming. Wells, by attempting to
>>>> discredit Ketttlewell's experiments about predation (and clearly there
>>>> are things wrong with Kettlewell's experiments) doesn't stop at saying
>>>> we can't be altogether sure about bird predation because of problems
>>>> with Kettlewell's experiments. No. He says, instead, that the evidence
>>>> for natural selection no longer exists. This is just plain wrong. He
>>>> cannot support this sweeping statement, but he spins it into his
>>>> conclusion by building a case against Kettlewell. This is what I mean
>>>> about his tactic of scrambling arguments. He wields non sequiturs
>>>> relentlessly.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this is helpful to you in your review.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce Grant, Professor of Biology, College of William & Mary.
> February
>>>> 2001
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Note to Alexanian, I am very careful with my posts, thank you for
> caring.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 03/09/2007
> 09:31
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 6 16:16:00 2007