Dr. Marty Leipzig

If you need a good belly laugh, check it out for yourself at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm (et. al)

To: Mr. Matthew J. Slick
From: M.R. Leipzig
Re: Your website and it's contents.

Dear Mr. Slick;

I was informed of your website by an acquaintance, and was rather bemused to see your so-called refutation of evolution. As I read through it, I saw no evidence (as proof is saved solely for mathematics and liquor), of this "God" hypothesis you put forth.

I saved your "arguments" and have rebutted each and every point and that result is what appears below (your original text is prefaced by the convention: MJS>), while my replies appear as regular text.

Finally, as you might have guessed, I am an unrepentant realist, pragmatist and atheist. I am also a petroleum geologist currently ensconced in the Middle East (where your claims, Biblical referencing and "proof" would be viewed most dimly); I have post graduate degrees in Petroleum Geology, have published in scientific journals and have taught real science at the Graduate level. I am also one of the regular WOA's ("Wicked Old Atheists") in the FIDONET Echo "HolySmoke" ("The Religious Food-Fight"). I have taken the liberty of posting your "proof" to the echo (I absolutely did nothing to edit nor change a single character, and you received full authorship credit for your work), so that others might enjoy. I do that so you will not be bewildered when others in that forum might send you their thoughts.

With that, on with the debunking...


Or: "What Matt needs an education in, and is going to get; whether he wants it or not..."

MJS> Evolution is the theory that life developed by chance out of
MJS> inorganic material

Right out of the box, you are totally wrong. Evolution says nothing about origins; that is pre-evolutionary biogenesis or biopoesis. Both are field of legitimate scientific inquiry and neither desire nor require any supernatural constructs.

Nor does evolution, but we'll get to that in a moment.

MJS> and then grew in complexity

Perhaps, but first you must define "complexity". Are you referring to cell count, biodiversity, sheer numbers, what?

MJS> and variety sufficient enough to fill the earth with all the species
MJS> we have today.

And all the species of the Earth's 4.5 billion year past and all those yet to come.

MJS> The driving forces of evolution are mutation and natural
MJS> selection.

Those are parts of evolutionary theory. There is much, much more to the fact of evolution and the various theories proposed to explain that fact. The above are but two; but two very important mechanisms nonetheless.

MJS> Mutation provides new genetic information

Yep. And so does sexual reproduction. I'll leave it to you which is the more important mechanism.

MJS> and natural selection (predation, environmental conditions, etc.)
MJS> removes or prevents non-beneficial mutations from being passed
MJS> on.

Natural selection is much more than environmental constraints (in fact, the key issue here is the flux of environmental conditions); predation, reproductive success, fecundity, survival to breeding age, etc., are also key ingredient of evolutionary processes.

Non-beneficial mutations can be carried as "excess genetic baggage" as long as they're truly benign. In fact, you're dead wrong that natural selection removes non-beneficial mutations. They're stored in DNA and provide grist for the evolutionary mill in the face of changing environmental conditions.

MJS> Those organisms that survive pass the new "improved" genetic
MJS> information to their young, who, if they survive, in turn pass it
MJS> to their young, and so on.

Non-beneficial mutations, if they're benign, are also passed along. The anthropomorphic idea of "improvement" is fallacious, as what may be an "improvement" to an organism in one set of environmental conditions might be fatal in another.

MJS> Evolution first became popular with Darwin's book Origin of the
MJS> Species.

There were other, earlier attempts of describing the complexity of the natural world that pre-date Darwin; yet it was he and Wallace that co-authored the address given that codified the ideas in "Origin of Species".

MJS> In it he described the theory of evolution, of the simple
MJS> developing into the more complex, and sought to substantiate
MJS> his theory with the fossil record.

Which he did; and which science has added to greatly in the past 125 years.

MJS> His theory, needless to say, caused much controversy.

That it did. Particularly to religious Victorians of the era and to this date, with those with some sort of doctrinal axe to grind.

MJS> Today, science has largely accepted the theory: "Evolution of the
MJS> animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to
MJS> judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed...All
MJS> other points of view besides the basic concepts of Darwin have
MJS> been discredited completely." [American Scientist, Goldschmidt,
MJS> Richard B., Evolution, as Viewed By One Geneticist. Vol. 40 No.
MJS> 1, Jan. 1952, p.84.]

How true. Evolution is both fact and theory. No proof need for fact, and theories are never "proven". But still, the modes and mechanisms of evolution contain much yet unresolved by science.

But, hey; we're working on it. Life had a 3.5 billion year head start.

MJS> However, though one respected scientist says the theory is a
MJS> fact,

"Evolution is BOTH fact and theory." Steven Jay Gould. That pretty well sums up the OBSERVED fact of evolution (change in allele expression frequency over time in a population) and the various theories to explain all facets and implications of this observed fact.

MJS> other respected scientists disagree: "This theory can be called
MJS> the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that
MJS> supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as
MJS> anything more than a working hypothesis." [Kerkut, G. A.
MJS> Implications of Evolution, New York,Pergamon Press, 1960
MJS> p.157.]

Perhaps you might want to check on a slightly less dated reference. There has been a tremendous amount of work done in population biology and genetics in the last 38 years.

MJS> Another scientist says, "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.
MJS> This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is
MJS> useless" [Professor Louis Bouroune as quoted in "The Advocate',
MJS> March 8, 1984, p.17. He was former President of the Biological
MJS> Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological
MJS> Museum, later Director of Research at the French National
MJS> Center of Scientific Research.]

Well, here's another scientist's opinion: "Bouroune is either being taken out of context or he's just plain flat-out wrong." - MR Leipzig.

So far as the research demonstrates, this quotation appears to be a mistakenly jumbled combination of statements made by two different people at least 36 years ago! - Neither did the editors of The Revised Quote Book (from where this little gem was copped) find enough room or honesty in their publication to discuss the social/historical context out of which the quotation(s) arose. The famous French scientist, Lamarck, was the first major scientific figure in Europe to seriously and strenuously propose "the theory of transformism" [today known as "the theory of evolution"]. So naturally, when the British "amateur scientist," Darwin, usurped Lamarck's throne to become known as the "father of transformism/evolution" the French were miffed. To them, Lamarck was the "father" of that theory. This basic disagreement must be taken into consideration whenever quotations from French scientists regarding "transformism" or "evolution" are cited, especially since those very words soon became identified with Darwin's (rather than Lamarck's) theory of "how" it occurred. This helps explain some quotations from French scientists wherein they showed disdain for "transformism/evolution." (However, note the very end of this article for the latest word on what French scientists think of evolution and even Darwin's theory!)

The validity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection does not depend on a quote by anyone, Nobel prize winner or Pope. There are a number of scientists (e.g. Fred Hoyle) who have done work and also hold eccentric opinions on certain scientific matters. So what? Quotations are not facts about the natural world. Science progresses despite (and sometimes because of) eccentric individuals, but no individual's opinions are revered as facts. The process [of scientific investigation] retains the true and discards the false.

Odd how contrary that is to the ways of religion and religious inculcation.

MJS> "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists
MJS> of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find
MJS> is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the
MJS> sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their
MJS> existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And
MJS> it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the
MJS> descendants were actually better adapted than their
MJS> predecessors. In other words biological improvement is hard to
MJS> find." [Dr. David Raup (Curator, Field Museum of Natural
MJS> History,Chicago), 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology'.
MJS> Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), 1979, pp.
MJS> 22-29.]

Dr. Raup here is speaking of punctuated equilibrium versus phyletic gradualism. He is comparing and contrasting two modes of evolution; not saying that there is not such thing.

To present the above quote as something derogatory to science or evolution is just plain deceitful.

And cheesy, as well.

MJS> Though there are devout proponents of the theory of evolution,

Which ones? There more than one theory, you know. They have their proponents, and detractors, as well. Science is like that.

And save your devoutness for things that need them; like your religion.

MJS> it must be admitted that within the evolutionary circles there are
MJS> very qualified individuals who recognize some serious problems.

A vague and careless red-herring of "there something rotten in the state of Denmark". Sure, there are problems not yet fully understood by science; but then again, we neither claim inerrancy or omniscience.

MJS> And rightly so.

Damn right they recognize the problems; in fact, those are the areas of the most exciting research.

MJS> There are serious problems with the theory.

Like what? Deceit; like you're attempting here?

MJS> Unfortunately, these problems are not mentioned in school

Obviously not in the one you attended.

MJS> or television.

Ah, television. That great educator. MJS> Instead, the theory is presented as a fact with all the support of
MJS> science.

Because that's what evolution IS, you unenlightened person! It is also a series of theories. It is both.

Creationism is neither.

MJS> Only, science hasn't proven it

Nothing is ever proven in natural science. That may come as a shock to you, but that's the nature of the beast, if you'll pardon the puns.

MJS> (even though some say it has),

Like who? Certainly no mainstream scientist, who knows that nothing is ever "proven" in natural science.

MJS> and science can't reproduce it (which is a requirement for
MJS> something to be scientific).

It has been reproduced millions of times in genetic, immunological and biological laboratories.

MJS> Evolution is not observable nor repeatable.

You are 100% dead wrong. Evolution has been observed, hundreds if not thousands of times, in the lab and the field. Care for all the references so you can track them down yourself and "prove" to yourself just how wrong you are?

MJS> It is a theory...and not a very good one at that.

It is a group of theories that are constantly subjected to the hammering by logic and inquiry on the anvil of science. They become more refined and more correct with every passing day.

Evolution is an observed fact. The theories we have (subject to constant change, science unlike religion, is a dynamic pursuit) are the best to explain that observed fact.

MJS> There are Problems with Evolution

You keep saying that. There are less problems with evolution than there are problems of your comprehension of evolution.

MJS> First, there is the problem of life spontaneously forming out of
MJS> nothing.

This inanity expresses once and for all your marrow-deep lack of understanding of evolution. Evolutionary theories say precisely NOTHING about the ultimate origin of life. That is the field of PRE-evolutionary biogenesis. Evolution kicks in immediately after the origin of life.

MJS> For life to form by chance,

As above, your deep misunderstanding of science is too apparent. Life did NOT arise by chance; as it was constrained by the very non-random laws of chemistry and physics.

MJS> there would have to be an incredible amount of time and an
MJS> incredible amount of combinations of molecules.

Your argument of incredulity only evidences your own incognizance with biopoesis; and not any problem with evolution.

MJS> Though many scientists say both qualifications have been met
MJS> on earth,mathematically speaking, it is impossible. I will
MJS> discuss this later.

Why do I have the feeling that you're going to trot out Fred Holye on us?

MJS> Second, the problem of the continued formation of new genetic
MJS> material. The development of new genetic material within
MJS> organisms is also a very serious problem.

Why? Because of your say-so? Transcription and replication are very well understood natural processes.

MJS> The DNA molecule is so complex that a random appearance of
MJS> one basically can't happen.

That's a non-problem, disposed with above. DNA did not arise randomly, but under the constraints of the laws of physics and chemistry.

MJS> Third, the human ancestor line which is riddled with holes.

Ah, now we get to the crux of the problem. You don't really care a fig that _Utahraptor elegans_ was derived from earlier Early Cretaceous theropod stock, do you? But, now we get onto human evolution and you get all tottery.

MJS> The historical evidence for the human ancestor line (hominid
MJS> line) falls into three categories: pure ape, pure man, and fakes.

Nope, that's a ridiculous and fallacious claim. The evidence is for fossil hominids right up to the present form of _Homo sapiens sapiens_. The "fakes", as you are trying unsuccessfully to sell as something detrimental to evolution, are just that: fakes. I should say that I think you're going to regret you brought this up...

MJS> That means that the evolutionary line of man is non-existent.

It does no such thing! It only means that you are being either intentionally biased and disingenuous, or you really know less than nothing of human evolution.

So, which is it?

MJS> The human ancestor line is riddled with gaps.

Actually, it's rather well represented from the Australopithicines, clear through to modern man. Your statement to the contrary is false.

MJS> You've heard the term "missing link."

Yes, I am not surprised that you should bring it up.

MJS> What you haven't heard is "found link" or "discovered link."

Because that's not what science does, how it works, or for what it is looking.

MJS> That's because they are all still missing.

What, in reality, missing is the possession of you an understanding of science; not the least of which is evolution.

MJS> Fourth, the missing links of all other species.

As I said before, do you want the reference list for just the examples of vertebrate transitional fossils?

MJS> None of the evolutionary lines of any of the animals, birds, fish,
MJS> nor plants is established.

You're dead wrong again. Evolutionary pathways and cladistics for all the major phyla are known and well evidenced.

MJS> They are all up for grabs.

As long as you have the evidence to back up your claims (which you don't). And, as I stated before, science is indeed dynamic and, dare say I, evolving, field of endeavor.

MJS> That is why a theory came out called punctuated equilibria.

No, that is not "why" Eldredge and Gould proposed the theory of PunkEek. It better explained the distribution of fossils observed in the fossil record.

Bloody scientists out doing science again.

MJS> It stated that the reason there aren't fossilized evolutionary links
MJS> between species is because evolution took huge sudden
MJS> jumps...

Nope, that is NOT what is promulgated by the theory called punctuated equilibrium. All it states is that speciation occurs in a "jerky or episodic" manner rather than a gradual, even manner. It says nothing about "huge, sudden jumps"; that's a lie. It refers only to speciation events.

MJS> in 100,000 or 300,000 year increments or so, during different
MJS> periods of earth's history.

Time periods are not specifically spelled out in numbers of years by any theory of evolution. To claim so is malarkey of the highest order.

What is stated by PunkEek is that there are *relatively* long periods of stasis, followed by *brief* periods of speciation.

MJS> This is revealing

Of your ignorance of punctuated equilibrium; and your overt hidden agenda.

MJS> because it is an admission by scientists that the fossil record is
MJS> so incomplete that a theory explaining huge regular gaps had to
MJS> be formulated.

Such utter codswallop! The gaps are not "regular", and although the fossil record is admittedly incomplete; it is complete to give us the evidence for the pattern and process of organic evolution of life on Earth over the past 3.5 billion years.

MJS> So then, where is all the evidence that proves evolution is true?

The fossil record, the laboratory and the field provide all the evidence needed to ascertain the validity of evolution. (Again, we don't do "proof" in science.)

MJS> We'll look at this more in a bit.

That I doubt.

MJS> Theistic Evolution

A bastard child of supernatural superciliousness and a deep ignorance of science. Keep it, it's your spawn.

MJS> A variation on the theme of evolution is theistic evolution.

And one never broached in the field or lab; as it's not science, but merely thinly disguised religion.

MJS> It states that God initiated life on earth and allowed evolutionary
MJS> principles to bring man to where he is--maybe with a little help
MJS> from God here and there.

Great. But before you go on warbling about "God"; to which one are you referring: Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Quetzacotl, Bob? Which?

I trust you have evidence for the one you choose?

MJS> At least this theory includes God.

Which immediately removes it from the realm of science and puts it smack into religion and all other forms of wishful thinking.

MJS> But this theory was developed in part by Bible believing people
MJS> who thought that evolution had some merit.

But were too emotionally insecure to part with the warmth and fuzziness of your God construct.

MJS> In addition, it is an attempt to answer the many problems
MJS> existing not only in the fossil record but also with how life could
MJS> somehow randomly form out of nothing.

"God done it." is just as non-scientific and irrelevant answer now as it was in the Middle Ages.

MJS> Because of problems like this, some believe they can be
MJS> explained by simply adding God to the picture: God directed
MJS> evolution.

Who cares what they believe? People believe in all sorts of bizarre and strange things. We're much more interested in what you (ahem) think.

MJS> For those who hold to the Bible as the word of God, theistic
MJS> evolution should not be a viable option.

For anyone with the merest moiety of their marbles, it should not be a viable option because it's a purely religious construct: totally unfalsifiable and untestable.

MJS> The Bible says, "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made
MJS> us..." (Psalm 100:3). The Scriptures state that God created. God
MJS> said, "Let there be..." and there was. The Scriptures speak of the
MJS> creative word of God. When God speaks; it occurs.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Bible also says that rabbits chew cud, there was a global flood and that snakes can speak.

So much for that as a scientifically accurate reference.

MJS> He said "Let there be" and it was so. It does not say, "Let there
MJS> be a slow development through an evolutionary process."

The Bible says precious little about computers, too, Chuckles.

MJS> God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image,

In the beginning, Man created God. In fact, thousands of them.

MJS> in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the
MJS> birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all
MJS> the creatures that move along the ground."

And they even get the order of appearance totally incorrect.

MJS> The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse and in verse 25 where
MJS> God makes the beasts, is , asah. It means to do, work, make,
MJS> produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of
MJS> evolutionary principles.

No, it's the ancient myths of nomadic tribesmen from the area of what is now the Middle East; and your and their total ignorance of evolution.

Them I can forgive their benightedness, not so with you.

MJS> The land animals were made differently than man. The animals
MJS> were made from the ground but man was made directly by God:

Right. That's why DNA is used by all animals as the form of information encoding. That's why the same bones that are typing this rebuttal to your nonsense are the same that propel and steer the dolphin, and provide flight for the bat, and speed to the horse. That's why iron hemoglobin is utilized by vertebrates as the oxygen carrying pigment in the blood.

Again, in case you don't realize it, the above is heavily sarcastic in nature.

MJS> "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and
MJS> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became
MJS> a living being"(Gen. 2:7). Evolution states that man evolved from
MJS> life forms that developed in the ocean. Here, God made man
MJS> from the dust of the ground--not the water of the ocean.

Odd it is that the majority of people in the world disagree with you. Not an argument from numbers, just an interesting observation.

MJS> If evolution is true and the Bible is true then how is the
MJS> formation of Eve explained?

From preceding ancestors.

MJS> She was created out of one of Adam's ribs (Gen. 2:22).

Yeah, and pi equals 3. (1st Kings 7:23).

MJS> There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution is true;

And there's no reason as you're trying to explain that which did not happen with that which does not exist.

MJS> that is, unless you want to say that Eve wasn't made from
MJS> Adam's side. Then, if you do that, you are doubting the very
MJS> word of God.

I do think you are beginning to catch on...

MJS> Also, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation
MJS> God 'made them male and female.'"

So, then, by that standard, your God did not create asexually reproducing organisms, parthenogenic lizards, transsexual organisms or fish that can swap their sex?

Doesn't sound too omniscient to me...

MJS> The beginning was not evolutionary slime;

Well, you got one part right. In the beginning there was the Big Bang. Later on, there can the primordial soup of the prebiotic earth. Life arose under purely natural and mechanistic means. Slime (aka, slime molds) don't arise for quite a while after that, as they are later organisms.

MJS> in the beginning of creation there was Adam and Eve.

I do trust you have solid evidence, comparable that you insist from science, for your wild claims?

MJS> Though this information is brief and far from complete, it
MJS> should be obvious that theistic evolution and the Scriptures
MJS> cannot be harmonized.

I quite agree. Both are fallacious and equally nonsensical.

MJS> Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

I see quite a bit of the former and absolutely none of the latter.

MJS> Ordering Information for the Christian Apologetics Notebook

Always the commercial. Doesn't God provide?

MJS> Web Page by Matthew J. Slick, B.A., M. Div.

Rebuttal by M.R. Leipzig, Bsc, Msc, PhD.

MJS> I welcome your comments via E-mail at mslick@connectnet.com

I don't think you will...

As a bonus, I've also ripped your "dinosaurs and evolution" absurdity to shreds as well:

MJS> 10.What about dinosaurs and evolution?

Yes, indeed. What of them?

MJS> 1.See the section on Evolution.

I've already debunked all that. Have you got anything of substance to say?

MJS> 2.Also, you could read a couple of books: Evolution The Fossils
MJS> Say No! by Duane T. Gish (Creation Life Publishers, San Diego),

Institute of Creation Research (another ministry, Matt) goon who's been routed, debunked and exposed more than any other, save his alter-ego Hank Morris, so-called "Scientific Creationist". Citing him as an expert in evolution is like referring people to Jeffery Dahlmer for group therapy.

What the fossils really say is "Gish? He's a preposterous buncombe artist and fraud."

MJS> and Man's Origin, Man's Destiny by A. E. Wilder-Smith. Bethany
MJS> House Publishers, (Minneapolis, Minn.).

Another creationist tome? A compendium of out-of-context quotes, ancient references and specious, thinly disguised arguments.

MJS> Both books will help you greatly.

Especially if constipation or insomnia are chronic problems.

MJS> 3.Even if evolution were true (it isn't -- but just for the sake of
MJS> argument),

Evolution is both fact and theory. If it's truth you want, the Philosophy for Nescients Class is just around the corner.

MJS> does that mean there is no God?

No more than Major League Baseball means there is no God. Evolution is scientific, naturalistic and mechanistic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your ostensible "God" hypothesis.

MJS> How do you know God didn't use it to get us here?

Provide evidence for this "God" of yours before you go off ascribing qualities to it.

MJS> (I am not teaching that evolution is true,

No, what you are promoting is bone-deep ignorance.

MJS> nor that God used it, which is called theistic evolution, I am
MJS> simply reasoning with them.)

Your powers of reason are as complete as your grasp of evolution; i.e., non-existent.

MJS> If you believe in evolution

Stuff your "beliefs". Evolution is a naturally occurring and observed phenomenon. Your belief or disbelief dose not in the least alter the fact of evolution.

MJS> does that mean you aren't a sinner?

"It's YOUR, Bible, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in Hell.", to cite an oft-quoted tagline.

They're your concepts, you rationalize them.

MJS> God won't accept the excuse that you believed in evolution and
MJS> not Him.

I am ceaselessly amazed at the omniscience of you people and your knowing what God will and will not accept.

Do the smart thing: accept only that which is evidenced. That disposes of the problem nicely.

MJS> 4.Have you examined evolution to see if it is true?

Yes, I have. As a professional Industrial Scientist (I'm a Petroleum Geologist), I have seen the fossil record; I have read the texts of Darwin, Mayr, Dobzhansky, Fisher and Haldane, Sagan, Gould, et al, and have the education and erudition to make the analysis and draw my conclusions.

Now, care to state that you personally have? Or do you just mindlessly regurgitate the inane garbage provided for you by the ICR and your local minister?

MJS> Evolution is not all that you are led to believe.

If you believe that evolution requires belief; you know less than nothing of what is evolution.

MJS> There are all kinds of problems in the fossil record.

Such as? It's amazing that it's as complete as it is.

MJS> New theories are being raised all the time

Damn those scientists. Doing science! How dare they?

MJS> to account for why there aren't any undisputed transitional
MJS> forms found between any species of any kind, anywhere,
MJS> anytime in all the fossil record.

This is an unmitigated lie. I can, if you desire, send you a huge file full of transitional forms, from both the fossil record and those recorded by observation.

Would you care to try and wade through a 1 meg file full of evidence that you're either a liar for Christ or woefully uninformed?

MJS> But, you wouldn't know these things because you haven't
MJS> studied.

Right, Chuckles. And how many degrees, how many publications (in refereed journals) and how many years of practice in the natural sciences have you?

Remove the beam from your own eye before you worry about the mote in other's. Age quod ages.

MJS> You need to know the facts about evolution

You need an education course in science, desperately.

MJS> and you need to know the facts about Jesus.

I cannot fathom how an observed phenomenon of nature has to do with some imaginary supernatural entity...

You are in dire need of a real education in science. If you so desire, I can send to you, free of charge and with my compliments, my "Evolution Fact FAQ"; that if you read and try too understand, you won't come off as such a nescient bumbling buffoon.


But, at least, the offer still stands. Care to take me up on that gauntlet?

... Someone cue the strumming hopping insects for Matt, please.


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank