Re: [asa] New Atheist Logic Lends Support to ID Movement

Heya Mike,

Of course, I'm not going to defend what went on in Dover. Not just because I
really believe that science, properly defined, really cannot settle these
questions - but my understanding of how the Dover school board approached
the issue makes it hard for me to sympathize with them. Far too sloppy not
only in execution, but even in their presentation of ID, oddly enough.

But I think there's a valid comparison between the Dover affair and the NABT
conflict. The NABT is a scholarly society of educators with a focus on
science education, particularly in public schools. When the NABT A) promotes
teaching that evolution is unguided and purposeless, B) wants to teach that
this is a purely scientific judgment, and C) when atheist groups are
explicitly throwing support behind teaching evolution in this way, I think
we're tremendously close in spirit and effect to having the administrator
walk in and make the announcement you describe (sans the specific
endorsement of Dawkins' book.) Absolutely, I think many ID proponents (and
TEs) would be outraged by the policy you describe. But I think they'd also
be outraged by teaching science the way the NABT wants to. (I say "wants"
rather than "wanted" because I'm not convinced the desire is gone. Reversing
a position out of socio-political pragmatism isn't very reassuring to me.)

I only bring up the NABT because it illustrates that it hasn't just been the
ID proponents who have made a play for getting their perspectives pushed
into public classrooms. There's certainly quite a number of differences -
the Dover school board was directly involved in school policy, while the
NABT is a non-governmental scholarly organization of educators. On the other
hand, the NABT is a national group with corresponding influence and
representation, and Dover is just one district in PA. And so on.

Either way, I fully agree that Carroll and the NAs make arguments that in
effect legitimize ID as science. I also agree that their arguments are
utterly invalid. To the credit of the ID movement, I think they've
indirectly forced NAs to make a very tough choice: Keep science distinct
from philosophy/theology (and therefore remove the authority of science, the
only ace the NAs have ever had, from the deck), or allow the two to mix (and
in the process make their ace moot, because now their opponents can claim
the authority of science as well).

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> Hi Schwarzwald,
>
>
>
> The NABT dust-up is worth mentioning. And it was Eugenie Scott and the
> NCSE who got the NCSE to back down. What is interesting is that it was
> the rising ID movement which gave her the leverage in this instance.
>
>
>
> But I still think this is very different. Imagine a school board in Maine
> instituting some policy where an administrator would come into a science
> class and announce that there are some scientists who believe science has
> ruled out the existence of God. The administrator also informs the
> students that the school’s library has several copies of Dawkins’ book
> available for interested students. I suspect that many people in the ID
> movement would be outraged by such a policy.
>
>
>
> “As you mention, the NAs are engaging in activity that just adds to this
> imbalance - but I think many people tend to regard ID proponents as somehow
> "starting" this conflict. As if everyone clearly respected the boundary
> between philosophy/theology and science, and then Philip Johnson and Dembski
> came along and ruined everything. I think that's deeply mistaken - and that
> ID in part came about as a natural (and to a degree, justified) response to
> the attitudes and claims of people like Carroll.”
>
>
>
> Well, even Ken Miller agrees. He made this very point in his first book,
> Finding Darwin’s God.
>
>
>
> -Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] New Atheist Logic Lends Support to ID Movement
>
> Heya Mike,
>
> Just one quick observation (busy weekend for me).
>
> You mention how one major difference between the IDs and the NAs is that ID
> proponents tried to get their viewpoints taught in public schools, while NAs
> are/have not.
>
> I think "academic" atheism (I cannot think of another description for them,
> though I'm sure there's a better term) already had a Dover moment of its
> own, at least in terms of violation - though without the legal conflict.
>
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/nabt.htm
>
> I recall the issue with Ken Miller authoring a textbook which described
> evolution as an "unplanned, unguided" process (I also recall, though I could
> be wrong, Miller explaining that he did not want to include those words but
> his co-author, an atheist, insisted.) There may be other examples I'm
> missing.
>
> So personally, I wouldn't agree that ID proponents have tried to take this
> fight into schools while atheists/NAs have left that area alone. I think ID
> has received vastly more attention on that front - and I suspect that with
> many, there is a double standard in play.
>
> As you mention, the NAs are engaging in activity that just adds to this
> imbalance - but I think many people tend to regard ID proponents as somehow
> "starting" this conflict. As if everyone clearly respected the boundary
> between philosophy/theology and science, and then Philip Johnson and Dembski
> came along and ruined everything. I think that's deeply mistaken - and that
> ID in part came about as a natural (and to a degree, justified) response to
> the attitudes and claims of people like Carroll.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Schwarzwald,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice points.
>>
>> “1) Is Carroll's view of science novel? Is he coming up with a completely
>> new definition/border of science? Or is he simply enunciating a view that's
>> been common for decades, at least in some circles?”
>>
>>
>>
>> While I’m no expert, I am quite sure that Carroll’s view of science is not
>> new. Neither did it begin with Dawkins.
>>
>>
>> “2) Now, I think Carroll's definition is ridiculous for a number of
>> reasons. But I think it's indisputable that under Carroll's definition, ID
>> (among many other things) is science. It's simply a minority viewpoint in
>> science. I'd also point out that Carroll goes even further than ID
>> proponents. At least formally, they argue that their methods and
>> observations point at design. Identifying the designer is something they say
>> cannot be done. Apparently Carroll, along with Coyne and others, think they
>> -can- identify the designer.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, the ID position has always been more modest, as even they have been
>> forced to acknowledge that the designer need not be divine. Many people
>> pooh-pooh this point, framing it as political expediency, and trying to
>> counter it with observations about groups and people, but the point is *logically
>> solid* and that is what matters most. In contrast, the NA position would
>> have us believe that science can pass judgment on the existence of God,
>> heaven, and the resurrection of Christ. Where is the logic in that? How
>> did Coyne scientifically get from a 900-foot-tall Jesus to the existence of
>> God?
>>
>> “Given this, isn't the ID response to some degree justified? I'm going to
>> repeat, I don't think ID is science, and I don't think Carroll's views are
>> science either. But when there's an argument, one not totally uncommon, that
>> defines the limits of science to include the supernatural - then isn't one
>> obvious response to say, "Fine - if those are the standards, then here's my
>> view and argument that complies with those standards."? Even if I think
>> there's a better response (rejecting the bad outline of science), I cannot
>> completely fault people for mounting an argument along those lines.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. Keep in mind the NAs are not “cranks” outside of science or
>> academia. People like Coyne, Myers, Dawkins, Carroll, Dennett, Stenger
>> come from *within* academia and represent themselves in this manner. They
>> speak as mainstream scientists, not as laymen. So when significant and
>> highly visible members of academia represent science as something that can
>> include miracles and god-of-the-gaps arguments, it becomes a lot harder to
>> fault the ID crowd for sincerely believing they are doing science.
>>
>>
>> “Further, no one should have double standards when it comes to this
>> question. I recall a recent dustup where Coyne and others accused groups
>> like the NCSE of having a lopsided approach to questions of science and
>> religion: Criticizing them for arguing that evolution and religion are
>> compatible, when Coyne and company disagree. I'd have a response in a
>> different direction: If ID proponents and the like are threats to science
>> because they are blurring the line between science and philosophy, then
>> Carroll, Dawkins and others *are also threats to science* and should receive
>> the same treatment. No one should accept the standard where if Behe and
>> Dembski (and perhaps even Conway Morris or Miller!) speculate about science
>> demonstrating design or purpose in nature, then they pose a threat to
>> science and should be denounced by going beyond what science can tell us -
>> yet if Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins, or others speculate about science
>> demonstrating the lack of design or purpose in nature, well they're just
>> giving their personal views and it's not really worth commenting on. This
>> conflict isn't a one-sided one where only those rejecting metaphysical
>> naturalism have violated the limits the NCSE and most TEs defend.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Very interesting point. If the ID movement was a “threat to science,”
>> why is not the NA movement a “threat to science?”
>>
>>
>>
>> One could argue that the ID movement was trying to get its views taught in
>> the public schools. And this is a significant difference. But the
>> difference is blurred by two other factors:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. The NA movement is under-cutting the Dover decision and thus
>> “providing ammunition to the IDists.”
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. The NA movement comes from within academia and its leaders represent
>> themselves as Ambassadors of Science (the ID movement has mostly
>> consisted of people outside of academia). These scientists and
>> professors are thus doing a lot of heavy-lifting to convince the general
>> public that science leads to atheism.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>> *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:43 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] New Atheist Logic Lends Support to ID Movement
>>
>> Heya Mike,
>>
>> I actually think there's something else here worth considering, aside from
>> Carroll's sloppy reasoning. And it highlights what has been a theme for me
>> for years in the ID debate.
>>
>> I'd ask followers on this list to consider a few things.
>>
>> 1) Is Carroll's view of science novel? Is he coming up with a completely
>> new definition/border of science? Or is he simply enunciating a view that's
>> been common for decades, at least in some circles?
>>
>> 2) Now, I think Carroll's definition is ridiculous for a number of
>> reasons. But I think it's indisputable that under Carroll's definition, ID
>> (among many other things) is science. It's simply a minority viewpoint in
>> science. I'd also point out that Carroll goes even further than ID
>> proponents. At least formally, they argue that their methods and
>> observations point at design. Identifying the designer is something they say
>> cannot be done. Apparently Carroll, along with Coyne and others, think they
>> -can- identify the designer.
>>
>> 3) Right now, someone could make the argument that at least among
>> practicing/professional scientists, Carroll's view of science is rejected.
>> Methodological naturalism (I still think that label is utterly incorrect,
>> and that IDs/TEs should reject that label even if the core standards are
>> justifiable) is the reigning viewpoint. Let's assume that is true.
>>
>> But let's also imagine a situation where things are flipped. Instead, the
>> idea of "methodological naturalism" as the defining limit of science is
>> rejected, and most scientists go by Carroll's view of science. I think it's
>> fair to say that both ID and TE proponents would then be entirely justified
>> in calling their views about God/Designer and the universe scientific, and
>> citing scientific support for their views. In fact, "justifying" wouldn't be
>> necessary, because it would by necessity be insisted by their opponents
>> right out of the gates. That's the whole point.
>>
>> As I've implied here, I don't think Carroll is really offering some
>> radical new view of science. The "science disproves God/supernatural" canard
>> is common, and has been common for decades at the very least. Someone can
>> make the argument that this view hasn't been standard in professional
>> journals or research situations (Does Nature ever run results of experiments
>> testing for God? etc.), but I think it's clear that the view has gotten a
>> whole lot of airtime in other venues. From Dawkins to Freud, from Stenger to
>> Sagan, not to mention in popular media as well.
>>
>> Given this, isn't the ID response to some degree justified? I'm going to
>> repeat, I don't think ID is science, and I don't think Carroll's views are
>> science either. But when there's an argument, one not totally uncommon, that
>> defines the limits of science to include the supernatural - then isn't one
>> obvious response to say, "Fine - if those are the standards, then here's my
>> view and argument that complies with those standards."? Even if I think
>> there's a better response (rejecting the bad outline of science), I cannot
>> completely fault people for mounting an argument along those lines.
>>
>> Further, no one should have double standards when it comes to this
>> question. I recall a recent dustup where Coyne and others accused groups
>> like the NCSE of having a lopsided approach to questions of science and
>> religion: Criticizing them for arguing that evolution and religion are
>> compatible, when Coyne and company disagree. I'd have a response in a
>> different direction: If ID proponents and the like are threats to science
>> because they are blurring the line between science and philosophy, then
>> Carroll, Dawkins and others *are also threats to science* and should receive
>> the same treatment. No one should accept the standard where if Behe and
>> Dembski (and perhaps even Conway Morris or Miller!) speculate about science
>> demonstrating design or purpose in nature, then they pose a threat to
>> science and should be denounced by going beyond what science can tell us -
>> yet if Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins, or others speculate about science
>> demonstrating the lack of design or purpose in nature, well they're just
>> giving their personal views and it's not really worth commenting on. This
>> conflict isn't a one-sided one where only those rejecting metaphysical
>> naturalism have violated the limits the NCSE and most TEs defend.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Schwarzwald,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are saying things better than I did, so let me bounce off them some
>>> more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “That's pretty much my estimation. Carroll's probably thinking he's being
>>> real clever here, but he's actually really hurting himself. His move
>>> involves happily arguing that science itself could conceivably explain
>>> things by references to supernatural causes and events - but then he quickly
>>> follows up with "but we've never been forced to do that, therefore science
>>> shows it never happened, and that's that!"”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He’s just following the lead of Dawkins, who wrote, “the presence of a
>>> creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis." The
>>> NAs were not pleased with the Dover decision precisely because it took away
>>> the authoritative role of science with regard to God’s existence. They
>>> want to portray God’s existence as a falsified scientific hypothesis and not
>>> something that falls outside the realm of this authoritative judgment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is instructive to remember how the ID movement was defeated at Dover.
>>> The core, central point of contention was whether ID is science. The
>>> ‘ID-as-science’ claim is a necessary part of the movement, as without this
>>> claim, there is insufficient leverage for the movement’s cultural
>>> objectives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It was the NCSE and TEs who defeated the movement in court, not the NAs.
>>> And they did so by challenging this core claim as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Establish that ID was religious and was invoking a supernatural
>>> cause.
>>>
>>> 2. Focus on the arguments of ID to show they were negative,
>>> God-of-the-gaps arguments, thus not science.
>>>
>>> 3. Reassert the necessary role of methodological naturalism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet the NAs have taken all of these off the table. They have also
>>> removed the need to do experiments and publish results in the peer-reviewed
>>> literature (can anyone point to a NA who did this to rule out the existence
>>> of God?).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “But that doesn't matter whatsoever. As Mike's pointed out, by Carroll's
>>> standards ID really is science (hell, explicit YEC complete with direct
>>> claims about God Himself may really science by these standards) - it just
>>> happens to be a minority position in the scientific community, and one
>>> Carroll (and, of course, other scientists) does not find at all persuasive.
>>> But ID proponents could not care less about their minority status, or what
>>> Carroll or any other ardent atheist happens to think about the subject. Many
>>> would be quite happy with it being recognized that they're actually making
>>> truly scientific proposals and arguments. Let Carroll try to prove what
>>> science says is the "best" explanation for various things, from biblical
>>> miracles to direction in evolution to otherwise - he does not realize that
>>> if he opens that door, no one has to accept his judgment on the issue.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very well stated. The NCSE/TEs focused on the methods of ID, showing
>>> that these methods were not science. The NAs have put themselves in a
>>> position where they cannot do likewise. If MN is dispensable, and
>>> science can include supernatural causes/miracles (i.e., Coyne’s
>>> 900-foot-tall Jesus), and the way to include supernatural causes is to first
>>> identify a gap (something natural processes cannot account for), then the
>>> only thing the NAs have left is the judgment that the ID methods have
>>> failed. But disagreement and minority views are common in science. In
>>> fact, it comes with the territory anytime a new and/or radical scientific
>>> hypothesis is introduced into the scientific community and it can takes
>>> generations for that hypothesis to become widely accepted. The ID folks
>>> can simply argue that they recognize their scientific hypothesis is
>>> controversial and a minority scientific view and they are working on that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2009 12:27 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] New Atheist Logic Lends Support to ID Movement
>>>
>>> That's pretty much my estimation. Carroll's probably thinking he's being
>>> real clever here, but he's actually really hurting himself. His move
>>> involves happily arguing that science itself could conceivably explain
>>> things by references to supernatural causes and events - but then he quickly
>>> follows up with "but we've never been forced to do that, therefore science
>>> shows it never happened, and that's that!"
>>>
>>> But that doesn't matter whatsoever. As Mike's pointed out, by Carroll's
>>> standards ID really is science (hell, explicit YEC complete with direct
>>> claims about God Himself may really science by these standards) - it just
>>> happens to be a minority position in the scientific community, and one
>>> Carroll (and, of course, other scientists) does not find at all persuasive.
>>> But ID proponents could not care less about their minority status, or what
>>> Carroll or any other ardent atheist happens to think about the subject. Many
>>> would be quite happy with it being recognized that they're actually making
>>> truly scientific proposals and arguments. Let Carroll try to prove what
>>> science says is the "best" explanation for various things, from biblical
>>> miracles to direction in evolution to otherwise - he does not realize that
>>> if he opens that door, no one has to accept his judgment on the issue.
>>>
>>> I'm mostly just echoing Mike here, but I'll say it anyway: Carroll thinks
>>> that so long as he can give an explanation which "accounts" for an event or
>>> state of nature, he wins. But being able to account for any given question
>>> about nature or reality is an easy bar to reach - even YECs can perfectly
>>> "account" for all of the results we've gotten from investigating biology,
>>> cosmology, etc. So too can ID proponents. So can, frankly, just about any
>>> person or side which wants to - not having access to modern science did not
>>> keep the greeks (among many other peoples) from coming up with explanations
>>> that accounted for practically every phenomena they were curious about. The
>>> additional hurdle of having to explain scientific data is beyond easy to
>>> jump.
>>>
>>> So that's what I see as the real stupid move on Carroll's part. He thinks
>>> he can argue that claims of ID, God, or miracles are really scientific
>>> hypotheses, but so long as he has a hypothesis of his own, then all the
>>> other options are immediately ruled out on the grounds that he thinks he has
>>> the best explanation. All he has to do is ask himself "are there any current
>>> questions in science that have more than one explanation?" to see he's
>>> playing a fool's game.
>>>
>>> But I think this is pretty obvious. So I'm left wondering, is Carroll
>>> just giving a speech to the faithful here - reinforcing that whole "we have
>>> science on our side and those religionists and christianists do not!" canard
>>> the 'net atheists love so much? Or is this honest naivete, along the lines
>>> of a professor who hasn't (at least mentally) set foot off campus or out of
>>> the lab in 20+ years, and doesn't realize that there's quite a lot of people
>>> who see things differently and couldn't care less about what he declares to
>>> be the answer to such questions?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For some time now, I have had a fascination with the similarities
>>>> between the ID movement and the New Atheist movement. One thing that
>>>> is becoming clear is that when the NA’s argue that science has determined
>>>> God does not exist, it becomes much harder for them to argue that ID is not
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I myself have long argued that ID is not science. But I also think
>>>> science cannot determine whether or not God exists (ie., NA is not science).
>>>> So look what happens when someone embraces NA thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Scientist Sean Carroll writes:
>>>>
>>>> “This is where talk of “methodological naturalism” goes astray. Paul
>>>> Kurtz defines it as the idea that “all hypotheses and events are to be
>>>> explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.” That
>>>> “explained and tested” is an innocent-looking mistake. Science tests things
>>>> empirically, which is to say by reference to observable events; but it
>>>> doesn’t have to explain things as by reference to natural causes and events.
>>>> Science explains what it sees the best way it can — why would it do
>>>> otherwise? The important thing is to account for the data in the simplest
>>>> and most useful way possible.
>>>>
>>>> There’s no obstacle in principle to imagining that the normal progress
>>>> of science could one day conclude that the invocation of a supernatural
>>>> component was the best way of understanding the universe. Indeed, this
>>>> scenario is basically the hope of most proponents of Intelligent Design. The
>>>> point is not that this couldn’t possibly happen — it’s that it hasn’t
>>>> happened in our actual world. In the real world, by far the most compelling
>>>> theoretical framework consistent with the data is one in which everything
>>>> that happens is perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena. No virgin
>>>> human births, no coming back after being dead for three days, no afterlife
>>>> in Heaven, no supernatural tinkering with the course of evolution. You can
>>>> define “religion” however you like, but you can’t deny the power of science
>>>> to reach far-reaching conclusions about how reality works.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer/
>>>>
>>>> Carroll has thus abandoned some of the most popular and powerful
>>>> arguments against ID-as-science.
>>>>
>>>> It is often argued that since ID invokes the supernatural, ID is not
>>>> science. This was the lead reason in the Dover decision. Yet according
>>>> to Carroll, invoking the supernatural is NOT a problem. In his mind,
>>>> science can include supernatural causes and miracles.
>>>>
>>>> It is often claimed that ID is a god-of-the-gaps approach, thus not
>>>> science. Yet Carroll is advocating a god-of-the-gaps approach. Carroll
>>>> clearly states, “There’s no obstacle in principle to imagining that the
>>>> normal progress of science could one day conclude that the invocation of a
>>>> supernatural component was the best way of understanding the universe.” So
>>>> why doesn’t science invoke supernatural causes? Because, “by far the most
>>>> compelling theoretical framework consistent with the data is one in which
>>>> everything that happens is perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena.”
>>>> Entailed in this argument is that the way to invoke a supernatural cause is
>>>> to demonstrate that not “everything that happens is perfectly accounted for
>>>> by natural phenomena.” In other words, some thing that cannot be (perfectly)
>>>> accounted for by natural phenomena. In other words, a Gap.
>>>>
>>>> It would seem that Carroll’s only beef with ID-as-science is the opinion
>>>> that ID has not successfully identified a true Gap.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, as we all know, the ID folks would disagree. And as we also know,
>>>> disagreement is very common in science.
>>>>
>>>> So here is what may be going on. Scientists like Carroll think ID would
>>>> be science if a true Gap (something that is not “perfectly accounted for by
>>>> natural phenomena”) was found. The ID crowd think they have such a Gap
>>>> (whether it’s the origin of IC, CSI, etc.)
>>>>
>>>> So in the mind of the ID people, they, in all sincerity, believe they
>>>> are indeed doing science. They differ from scientists like Coyne and Carroll
>>>> only in their estimation of success with regard to finding gaps. In such a
>>>> context, whether or not a gap truly exists is a scientific question, as both
>>>> sides agree that methodological naturalism has no role in deciding that
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
>>> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.29/2261 - Release Date: 07/25/09
>> 05:58:00
>>
>>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.29/2261 - Release Date: 07/25/09
> 05:58:00
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 25 16:57:58 2009