I sometimes wonder if the Discovery Institute dissembles so reflexively that they can’t even remember what they say from one press release to the next.
The "Intelligent Design" "think tank" has given money to Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State U for not doing anything he needed to do to actually get tenure. Things like, oh say, publish papers and get grants. The fact that Gonzalez is a proponent of antiscience had nothing to do with it, though I support strongly the idea of denying tenure to people who actively promote antiscience.
Still and all, Gonzalez was let go, and the Disco ‘tute went ballistic. Now they are triumphantly proclaiming how they are supporting Gonzalez by getting him a telescope and grants to continue his work.
The ridiculous spin being used by the ‘tute is ably and aptly put down by Josh Roseneau at Thoughts from Kansas.
I’ll add that the ‘tute made a big deal of Gonzalez’s denial of tenure, saying it was due to his religious beliefs. And now they’re saying that research done to support Gonzalez’s work will support ID. So that means, clearly, and not for the first time, that they think ID is a religion.
Those ‘tuters are a funny group. Maybe they really think they’re telling the truth, so they don’t expect us reality-based folks to check up on them.
Oh– I’ll add that back in February I predicted this very situation (read the last paragraph). Maybe I should apply for Randi’s million.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Predicted…?
July 9th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
BA- You would be much more devastating in your critique if you showed the levels of published papers from Iowa State University profs vs. Guillermo Gonzalez (they obviously have a huge track record compared to that twit!). He’s a science prof, and doesn’t fully believe in evolution, so he’s obviously a total moron and should lose his job!
We need more sharp tongues like you and PZ Myers out there. These boffo’s morano’s need to toe the party line and get with it. Creationist doctorzists are idiots and they shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on college campuses. They will just infect their conservative ideologies on the student body. Thank goodness we have a flashlight in the darkness with a guy like you-JH
ps- Sorry if that sounded snappy above but these boffo’s just have me wound. I only want the truth taught, and we have figured that out.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Why does black hole and discovery institute seem to go hand and hand in my mind.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
“He’s a science prof, and doesn’t fully believe in evolution, so he’s obviously a total moron and should lose his job!”
“Creationist doctorzists are idiots and they shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on college campuses. They will just infect their conservative ideologies on the student body.”
Well put, JUTU! You’ve concisely and elegantly expressed what I’m certain are the opinions of all us secular science bullies. I just hope that nobody from a right-wing, pro-ID website cites this comment as proof of what judgmental, narrow-minded hypocrites we are.
Boy, then wouldn’t WE be in trouble! I’m glad that JUTU, whoever he/she is, is on OUR side.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Thanks JDS! I try to fight anti-science wherever I can. Unfortunately, much less effectively than Plait (but I can only hope).
I think we can all agree that as scientists (well, I’m not a “real” one like Plait is, and also not a “real” one like Gonzalez) that there is pretty much no room left, at this point, to discuss biological development.
Look, this is simple and Phil is right. Gonzalez is (well, “was”) an astronomer- and he doesn’t believe in evolution. Therefore- he needs to lose his job. The Iowa taxpayers can’t afford to support buffoons like this. I don’t care what he’s published (oh wait…Phil said he hasn’t published anything…). He needs to go.
I promise to not be snarky anymore in my posts. Boo on you Gonzalez- Plait is right!
July 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I sense trolls…
July 9th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
IDiocy is a religious belief when it works to the advantage of the IDiots, and not a religious belief when it doesn’t.
Nothing new, of course.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I do very much appreciate that someone else bluntly calls the Disco ‘tute liars. It is such a shame that people intentionally lie (and lie badly), use outdated information, etc, and in the same breath claim that they are “good Christians”. Too bad they seem to have missed Romans 3 where the Bible says that God doesn’t need or want people lying for him.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I sense trolls…
i’m inclined to agree…
OK… so way, way OT here… but I look to the right of this page and notice the return (at least partially) of the blogroll! Wo0t!!
July 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Calling the DI “Disco ‘tute” might well be considered a defamation of disco. Perhaps also a mortal insult to potential alien races that call themselves ‘Tute. (But hopefully there were continue to be many tragic miscalculations of size.)
July 9th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Um wait…. I’m still stuck on how his research in astronomy is going to help ID.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
He probably going to try to prove the universe is only 6000 yrs old.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
From the quote in the link…
“But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research. They only need an already existing telescope, enough money to fly or drive to the facility, and an inexpensive computer to analyze the observational data they obtain.”
And the data magically reduces itself! *head asplodes*
I can’t… wow….
July 9th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“Those ‘tuters are a funny group. Maybe they really think they’re telling the truth, so they don’t expect us reality-based folks to check up on them.”-
Um….ok Phil dude, please “check up” on them and give us the update. Gonzalez wasn’t “doing anything he needed to do to actually get tenure “. He obviously wasn’t publishing papers like you and the faculty of CO have been doing (a simple Google search will prove that he hasn’t published anything compared to you and your colleagues output-….oh yikes….sorry…).. Well, I’ll believe you.
Gonzalez as an astronomer and published doctor- Loser! He doesn’t believe in Plait’s version of evolution!
July 9th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Um… ok JUTU dude…
1. I don’t remember Phil making any attempt to compare his published works with Gonzalez… you’ve gone ahead and created that needless comparison.
2. Phil isn’t attempting to attain tenure, which outlines requirements such as publishing papers and acquiring grants. So the comparison you attempt to stuff in there is seriously flawed.
3. I’m not sure you’re aware of this, but it wan’t Phil, or his colleagues, that refused Gonzalez his tenure, dude…
Take your flimsy sarcasm elsewhere… I don’t think this is an argument you’re gonna win based on any facts, so you’ve resorted to invented characterizations and irrelevant comparisons. Typical.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“Look, this is simple and Phil is right. Gonzalez is (well, “was”) an astronomer- and he doesn’t believe in evolution. Therefore- he needs to lose his job.”
No, it’s not simple. He does not need to lose his job *because* he does not believe in, or fails to take an active stance on, biological evolution. Yes, his affiliation with the DiscoToot antiscience goon squad emphatically suggests that his reasoning as a scientist should be questioned (on the other hand, he could be just a venal opportunist.) But he should be judged on the value of his work as a scientist, and not because he would refuse to sign a document attesting to his belief in evolution.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Oh, JUTU wins the irony award!
A “simple Google search” would reveal that I am not, nor have I ever been faculty. I am not directly affiliated with the University here in any way.
Strike One.
I am a doctor and have published many papers. But the real point here is that Gonzalez was not publishing enough papers to warrant giving him tenure. In fact, that’s the entire point. He was turned down for tenure at ISU because he didn’t do enough to earn it.
Strike Two.
I didn’t say I was checking up on them. I said Josh did, and hoisted them by their own petard.
Strike Three.
And honestly, I’ve read your comment twice now, and I still am not sure exactly what you’re trying to say. I’d give you a Strike Four, but I think my point has been made.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
BA- I spent about 20 minutes typing up a snarky response but I’m not going to post it after reading your post (I was very happy being all “anonymous” until I hit that “refresh” button and saw what you typed).
Yep, I struck out, and got called on it by you. I still think Mr. Gonzalez should be given a bit of a pass (since his views are reflective of his religious beliefs). But I’m embarrassed about what I posted before regarding this whole thing (I went back and re-read what I wrote).
You did make your point, and made it much more eloquently than I- sorry. Grrrrrr….I lose..
You have a great blog. Keep posting. Sorry to be one of those idiots on you blogs.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“Gonzalez as an astronomer and published doctor- Loser! He doesn’t believe in Plait’s version of evolution!”
It has just occurred to me that three necessary taxonomic characteristics of the Common Forum Troll (ignoramus annoyus horribilis) are: 1.) Ignorance of the subject at hand sufficient to prevent them from realizing that their arguments have already easily been demonstrated false; 2.) an inability to successfully employ irony, sarcasm or any other rhetorical device beyond the grasp your average turnip; and 3.) a high likelihood of extraneous apostrophe’s (<– see what I did there!?) and phrases such as “published doctor.”
July 9th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Yep JDS I’m a turnip. Welcome to the fourth grade.
BA- Grumph, wish I could delete those earlier posts. Sorry.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Apply for the million. You’ve made a more accurate prediction than most “psychics”. Plus I’d like to see the response from Randi.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Davidlpf Says:
“Why does black hole and discovery institute seem to go hand and hand in my mind.”
What is with all these insults to a perfectly good astronomical phenomenon (or maybe I should say “astroNOMNOMNOMical pheNOMNOMNOMenon”)? I mean, cut the poor puppies a break already. First a judge says they’re racist, and now a commenter is calling them IDiots. What next?
=GYNORMOUS grin, duck, and run like hell for the bunker!=
July 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
JUTU: well, wow. That was very gracious of you, especially after I sniped at you. My apologies as well, and please feel welcome to continue to comment here.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“astroNOMNOMNOMical pheNOMNOMNOMenon”
You owe me a new monitor.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Does a discovery institute supplied telescope have the mirrors painted black, or does it just have a picture of Jesus glued to the eyepiece?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Jose, no but it is specifically labelled “for external use only”.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I would like to add Dr. G put his pro-ID book on his CV for the tenure comity and so he’s the one that introduced his views to them. Of course he had to do that in order to explain why his publish count had dipped down.
I will also add that I was a teaching assistant for him a couple years back and while he was a good teacher there were times his apologetics slipped into his lectures. This was before I knew he was an ID person but I remember thinking “well that just bad logic.”
July 10th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Sorry about the monitor, Nicole. Actually, I made a LOL out of that, but haven’t got around to ULing it to flickr yet.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:47 am
AIUI, it in fact could and should have had something to do with it, because Gonzalez chose to include his book “The Privileged Planet” in his tenure dossier. If you include something in your tenure dossier, you can hardly complain if the referees decide to look at it! See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/iowa-citizens-f-1.html
July 10th, 2008 at 3:00 am
For Nicole: Gonzalez asserts that the existence of God is proved by the physical characteristics of the universe, since if they were otherwise we couldn’t exist. The mole people of Ophiucus, who would exist if it they were not rendered impossible by the value of the fine structure constant, would object if they existed.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Phil as a soothsayer. Hmmm, could be some money in that. Gee, you could be right up there with Ann Dixon and Nostadamus. Get some pigeons so you can cut their entrails out and finger around in them. Maybe a crystal from Santa Fe full of power. No, no, I know build a pyramid and sleep in it. You could even keep your razor blades in there to keep them sharp. Oh wait, you don’t shave, do ya?
Not to take away from your amazing powers of prognostication, but the ID bunch supporting this “scientist” took no great Rosicrucian abilities. Keep it up, Dude.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I have a 600x Science Telescope I’ll sell to Gonzalez for his “research”. The box shows that it can produce Hubble-quality views!
And can I just say that ‘tuter’s is an awesome name for inmates of the Discovery Institute? Of course, I do have a juvenile sense of humour sometimes…
July 10th, 2008 at 8:09 am
bad Jim, good argument! Now, I think Gonzalez may hold open for the mole people to live here, i.e. he keeps quiet on his belief that it is only humans that matters. But we should kick anti-scientists wherever it hurts them.
How about “creodote” for the hangers-on, for example stuck up historian of mathematics Berlinski?
July 10th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Andy:
Read the fine print on your Tasco box. To see images like those displayed on the box, you have to first launch your telescope into orbit, then point it at Hubble’s eyepiece. (Some extra equipment required.)
July 10th, 2008 at 8:29 am
themadlolscientist: Haha, was kidding about that. I could control myself, barely, while laughing. Besides, this old Mac is on its way out I think… time for Intel anyone?
bad Jim: Heh, that’s a good one. And it’s all a good reminder to keep on our toes for anti-science nonsense when talking about astronomy. I’m sure that someone somewhere has written about the amount of slop we really do have in the various physical constants before matter becomes… well, doesn’t become.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Do you suppose if we all rant and rave about how we’re being beat up for our beliefs, the Disco Toot will buy us each a telescope?
July 10th, 2008 at 9:04 am
@ Dave: That depends, would your beliefs fall under the term “creationist”? The discovery institute has been very willing to defend creationists of all stripes from the most flimsy imaginary persecution, but is quite happy with the persecution of anyone who doesn’t support creationism (Chris Comer, for instance).
July 10th, 2008 at 9:06 am
If a being did create our Universe, I am willing to bet it
will be NOTHING like what most IDers think it is and will of
course reject that being while looking for the “real” creator.
By the way, I think the Universe just happened and we all have
to fend for ourselves. Just look at how many people are screwed
in their daily lives with no obvious intervention from a “benevolent”
deity.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Nicole Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Um wait…. I’m still stuck on how his research in astronomy is going to help ID.
Davidlpf Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
He probably going to try to prove the universe is only 6000 yrs old.
Josh Roseneau’s blog contains a link to Gonzalez’s book, “Privileged Earth”, which also seems to be his theory of the cosmos. A few minutes of reading indicate that he’s extrapolating the “rare Earth” theory to “only Earth”, in other words he’s going to try to prove that Earth is the only place in the universe capable of supporting intelligent life. As well as, of course, dumb life.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:17 am
You may be amused (or else dismayed) to learn that at last week’s yearly National Education Association (the US’s largest teacher’s union, consisting of primarily K-12 educators) Representative Assembly, the Creation Museum had paid for a booth in the vendors exhibition hall. Unfortunately I didn’t have my camera with me, so I couldn’t get a photo of myself in front of their dinosaur models and sign. Later in the week the floor debated whether to allow such exhibitors in our exhibition hall (as the teaching of creationism is against the NEA’s policies), and the decision was to allow it, the primary argument being that banning them is a stifling of free speech. I personally would slightly have preferred banning them as I feel they reflect poorly on the organization, however I do not think banning them would have changed the opinions of anyone present who did believe in creationism or espouse its teaching in public schools.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
@mapnut: It would be better if he first proved that the Earth is capable of supporting intelligent life. I’m still not convinced.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I guess nearly everyone has managed to forget Alvin B. Tofflers book Future Shock but the conflict between IDers and Rationalists is a classic example of Tofflers premise. The “Old Guard” holds on to the past, while the “New Kids On The Block”, many of whom had our little minds expanded by SciFi, rush pell mell into the future, embracing change as “The Way Things Should Be”.
One of the premises of the Bible(old testament) is that God is self creating.
One of our major understandings of the origination of life(abiogenesis) is that life is SELF CREATING,,,
Do you see the essential connect between those two points of view?
,,,and God looked around ITS universe and said,”Huh? Where the Frak am I?”
Thus WE are the One, trying to figure out how we got to where we are,,,
I LOVE introducing weird premises into logical discussions. Logic is so,,,limiting,,,though still useful.
Gary 7
July 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I was all set to agree that the issue was purely the lack of meeting the qualifications of tenure, but then I did some checking and the waters got muddy. It started with a suspicion that Phil had misinterpreted a statement by the Discovery Institute as meaning ID was a religion. Since that would have been like Lincoln recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation, it didn’t quite ring true, so I wanted to look a little deeper.
Since this was a Discovery Institute statement, I naturally went looking there. What I found was, of course, their version of events. But the interesting thing is they claim to have found e-mails that show ID was the reason Gonzalez was denied tenure. See:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4343
At this point I suspect it might be a combination of both. Perhaps Gonzalez didn’t meet the requirements and his support of ID didn’t help matters. And granted the Discovery Institute has a reason to spin this. But, I might add, so does Iowa State. Something that’s raising a warning flag is the Discovery Institute’s assertion that Gonzalez has met the publication requirement. Now, whatever one might think of the Discovery Institute, to make this claim without at least some evidence that could be interpreted that way would be a very stupid thing to do, and that makes me wonder if *something* is there.
I also wasn’t able to find the statement that in was because of his religious beliefs, at least not skimming the Discovery Institute web site. If they did make that statement, I suspect it had to do with a claim of bias due to his religious belief, not to ID. But without seeing the statement I can’t evaluate it.
There’s a bit more here than meets the eye. It all might settle out to be exactly what ISU claims, but at this point it’s a bit open.
I’m troubled by the idea voiced here that tenure *should* be denied to those who hold some views. Imagine if a university had the consensus that Global Warming wasn’t happening. Should they deny tenure to those who believe it is? Or suppose that a physics department is staunchly behind String Theory. Should they deny tenure to a scientist who doesn’t?
The reflex answer is to ask if someone who supports a flat earth theory should be given tenure in the geology department, or if an outspoken heliocentric believer should be granted tenure to teach astronomy. Yet things aren’t usually that clear cut.
I don’t have an answer for this. I can see how abuse can happen both ways. One can be used to suppress new theories and the other can be used to continue disproven ones long past their expiration date. Neither seems like a very good idea.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am
KC: The issue with the email has been looked at over and over again. The emails showed that some professors at the university were personally opposed to Gonzalez’s ties to the DI. They did not show that those opinions had any bearing on the tenure decision.
There is one sure-fire way to prove that Gonzalez’s tenure was denied because of his beliefs. The tenure committees’ decisions were all heavily documented and given to Gonzalez so he knew exactly what he did wrong. The university has refused to release this information, saying it is the private business of the person under review. However, Gonzalez is able to release it if he wants to. He has not done so as far as I have heard. If his work with the DI was an issue in the tenure committees’ decision, it would be documented there. Yet Gonzalez and the DI have not found it worthwhile to release this to prove their case. Why not? I guarantee you that if there was even the slightest shred of circumstantial evidence in that document the DI would be harping on it constantly. Yet they and Gonzalez have steadfastly refused to release it. This indicates to me that there is nothing in the actual decision to help their case, and that is why they are relying on the emails.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
“One of the premises of the Bible(old testament) is that God is self creating.
One of our major understandings of the origination of life(abiogenesis) is that life is SELF CREATING,,,
Do you see the essential connect between those two points of view?
,,,and God looked around ITS universe and said,”Huh? Where the Frak am I?”
Thus WE are the One, trying to figure out how we got to where we are,,,”
Personally I like the Gnostic interpretation of things. That the physical universe is a hollow recreation of the true universe created by God. That a demented, amnesiac son of the actual deity is responsible for this flawed universe but doesn’t realize that he’s made a flawed creation because he doesn’t consciously remember the real thing.
In the Gnostic view the Abrahamic God of the Old Testament (Worship me, or else! Bow before me! You will be punished! I will reign fire on the unbelievers!) is the demented sub-deity and the God of love and forgiveness in the New Testament is the actual Deity who is trying to save mankind.
Not saying its true but it would sure explain a lot.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
TheBlackCat:
You may be right. Yet it’s also not that hard to engineer a decision off-stage – that’s part and parcel of the world of politics – and that seems where DI is headed with the e-mails. Yet you could be right. It’s all about as clear as dirt pudding.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Uh, once again I’m floundering due to some of the jargon used by the commenters: what the **** is “boffo’s morano’s” and “astroNOMNOMNOMical pheNOMNOMNOMenon” supposed to mean? I can’t put them in context, because they’re so off the wall – to me, anyway. Sigh. Perhaps I need to download the latest weekly blogspeak dictionary?
As to the topic at hand: I still don’t understand how ANYONE can reconcile a belief in biblical fairy tales which directly conflict with known scientific fact so as to call themselves a scientist. “Yes, the Bible is accurate and the word of god, but I see scientific evidence of a planet far older than 6,000 years. So, I don’t take the biblical text literally (as it says I must), yet I still remain faithful to it and its contents.” Huh? How can this conflict be reasoned away? Haven’t the various religions cast out folks for lesser offenses of unbelief? Isn’t the official dogma of all religions an either/or proposition: either adopt the creed TOTALLY or be excluded from the fold? Or, am I misinterpreting those main areas of the Koran and the Bible (in all its versions) which deny membership to all unbelivers for even the slightest fudging of the dogma?
July 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
That may be where the DI was headed with the emails, but they never got there. The emails were the personal opinions of some professors, there is no evidence whatsoever for any sort of behind-the-scenes shenanigans either in the emails or anywhere else.
What is more, if the real reason that Gonzalez was fired had to do with DI, then you would expect otherwise he would have gotten tenure. That means the tenure decision would have either not really had sufficient grounds to deny him tenure or would have fabricated reasons to deny him tenure. Either way the DI would have revealed the problems with the decision. The fact that they haven’t is very strong evidence that the decision contains sufficient valid reasons to deny him tenure (or, rather, insufficient valid reasons to give it to him, since tenure is something that must be earned).
July 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Isn’t the very premise of the “Privileged Planet” a dead giveaway that it’s really crown of creationism rather than any sort of science? Even if we assume a designer, what could make us then assume that we were the only ones so designed?
July 11th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Gonzalez isn’t the first academic who lost his way. I remember a professor, when I was working on my advanced degree, who failed to accumulate the required publications, and so was not only denied tenure, but actually dismissed. Now the professor was an excellent classroom teacher, as well as a fine director for graduate student research (and had a smokin’ hot body! >slap! Bad Farb! Bad, bad, Farb!< ), but all of that was to no avail: the gods of 'Publish or Perish' had to be satiated. It was ugly.
But in short: they knew what the rules were going in. If they didn't like the rules, they shouldn't have played by them. There are plenty of institutions which don't place the same value on scholarly publications as the big universities. Gonzalez landed the tenure-track, then didn't fulfill the conditions for tenure. But then he compounded his error by successfully soliciting help from the krypto-religious ideologues at DI, and became a poster child for their peculiar brand of intellectual freedom.
This ended any hope he ever could have had for professional rehabilitation, and now he's stuck in an academic limbo of his own making. Of course DI will stand by their poster child: they can't afford to pasture this losing horse without donors calling their barely-existent credibility into serious question. Once they included their court astronomer among the ranks of the EXPELLED, they were duty-bound not to expel him themselves. So they crow about securing him a 0.5-meter, and issue press releases.
Now, with four times the power of my backyard instruments, unlimited access to one of those babies would send an amateur like me into paroxysms of ecstasy. But sober reflection suggests that there isn't much a 20-inch can do to advance Gonzalez' hypothesis about a privileged status for Earth: it simply hasn't the resolution, especially from low altitudes. Given some good computing power, he might be able to find evidence for a few nearby extra-solar Jupiter-sized planets, but he'd better hurry.
So the DI sensibly throws in a squib about getting time on the MacDonald. Well, now we're barely starting to bat in the necessary ballpark for instrument size, but we're still hoping to tease out spectral data from an earth-sized planet transiting a distant sun-like star here. I don't hold out much hope for that happening until the Webb Space Telescope is operational in the next decade. Then there's the whole problem of proving a negative: one exception and your whole hypothesis is nothing more than an ink stain.
DI may as well have bought their court astronomer tickets to a peep show (>slap! Bad Farb! Bad, bad, Farb!<). In essence, they already have, and are congratulating themselves for their generous patronage.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:50 am
I am not sure if you have seen this. Even Nathional Geographic make a few stabs at ID.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080709-evolution-fish.html
September 9th, 2008 at 11:00 am
[...] see how quickly the folders, spinners, and mutilators at the Disco ‘tute can run with this. [...]