The basics of Intelligent Design

The ever-crumbling Darwinian evolution propaganda is so deliberately and aggressively politicized in education and the media and so venomous towards alternative theories that it is hard to have a reasoned discussion about Intelligent Design.  So few people understand the basic premise, which is simple, clear and elegant.  Via What is the case for intelligent design?

Intelligent design is a scientific theory that holds some aspects of life and the universe are best explained by reference to an intelligent cause. Why? Because they contain the type of complexity and information that in our experience comes only from intelligence.

As a result, intelligent-design theorists begin by studying how intelligent agents act when they design things. Intelligence is a process, or a mechanism, which we can observe at work in the world around us. Human designers make a great dataset for studying how intelligent agency works.

When we study the actions of humans, we learn that intelligent agents produce high levels of complex and specified information (CSI). Something is complex if it’s unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern. William Dembski and Stephen Meyer explain that in our experience, only intelligent agents produce this type of information . . .

People infer design all day, every day — especially in science.  Consider forensic science, archaeology and the search for extra-terrestrial life, where constant inferences to intelligent causes are foundational.

One way to get the average person to reconsider the concept of ID is to point out examples like that.  I was talking to a friend this week who is obviously uncomfortable with Darwinism but has never been taught to consider alternative views.  In the same conversation he referenced a TV show about some highly complex ancient ruins that were were so precisely made that they “must” have been made by aliens.  That was a good catalyst for me to compare those obviously designed (whether by aliens or humans) works to something like DNA, which is not only thousands of times more complex but also part of living beings.

If people are quick to assume alien origins for something complex, or even just realizing it would have required unusually advanced human intelligence, why do they drink the Darwinian Kool-Aid and assume that the origin of life, the complexities of DNA, etc. could have arisen without an Intelligent Designer?  They just need to know the real definition of ID and the well-documented fact that materialists cheat and assume that you can’t consider the supernatural when trying to explain something like the origins of life.

46 thoughts on “The basics of Intelligent Design”

  1. A few points that I like to make whenever this subject arises:

    1) Contrary to popular belief, Intelligent Design (ID) vs evolution is not (and never has been) about “religion vs science.” It’s always been about science vs science. The only question worth asking is: What theory best explains the origins of life on Earth?

    2) Macro-evolution (Darwinian evolution), if proven true, still doesn’t eliminate the possibility of a Designer. However, ID, if proven true, would force all honest scientists to admit that God (whatever you take Him to be) is undeniably real. This in turn carries some (moral) implications that many scientists and others, simply aren’t comfortable with. (I happen to think this is the entire reason that Darwinian evolutionists hold so fast to their theories.)

    3) ID proponents often allow for small changes within a species (micro-evolution), such as bacteria growing resistant to antibiotics or moths changing color; they do not, however, allow for macro-evolution, which alleges that one species can transform into another, entirely different one over millions of years.

    The former is well-established; the latter is the product of pure conjecture, nothing more. No proof, nothing…in fact the fossil record supports the ID side and not the Darwinists.

    4

    Like

    1. The fossil and DNA record show that with millions of years, enormous changes can take place to a sepcies but these are in the form of near countless tiny steps, unobservable from 1 generation to the next. It also shows that humans share a common ancestor with modern great apes, explaining our horrendously designed bodies which cause us painful childbirth, under-developed children, bad backs and a skeleton that is inherrently unstable. In what way is this design ‘intelligent’?

      Like

      1. I don’t know that you can say there are any changes, even over great periods of time, that are more than changes within a species, rather than changes from one to another species. ID proponents don’t argue this. The fossil and DNA records do not show PROOF of a common ancestor, only a suggestion of a possibility. Similarities in DNA are only similarities until some connection between two species is proven.

        Like

      2. If there are fossils of species which no longer exist and they, according to you, are not evidence of evolution, are you speculating that your ‘intelligent designer’ made no end of mistakes and had to keep correcting them? Or was this creator powerless to stop his ‘perfect’ creations form extinction?

        Like

      3. We have theological answers to your religious claims, but as you haven’t even read through Genesis 3 I won’t spend time on those. What is illuminating is that you immediately create a straw-man. Even if the designer was imperfect that wouldn’t mean there was no designer. Your bias is showing.

        Like

      4. Throughout Genesis (including chapter 3) we have a description of a god who makes mistakes over and over again, is displeased with his creations, jealous, spiteful and cruel. That is the straw-man. I have not created it, you have described it. I am merely pointing out that if there was a designer it would have to be imperfect and prone to mistakes, thus it could not be described as an omnipotent god. If it is not omnipotent, I see no reason to believe it was able to create the universe or anything else, or to worship it, it seems to more powerful than the gods of classical Greece.

        If all the bible was literally, or allegorically true, god would be weak and evil, he would appear to love the suffering of those he has not revealed himself to yet allow those same people to cause his chosen people hardship. Niether good nor omnipotent, ie. not god.

        Like

      5. That assumes your idea of what a mistake is equates to God’s idea of what a mistake is. If you know the mind of God, then you could possibly know whether or not something was an actual mistake or all part of His plan. Some are not arrogant enough to make such presumptions.

        Like

      6. You make a cute little Dawkins acolyte. Haven’t heard much from him lately. Maybe he got tired of embarrassing himself in public?

        You are spiritually dead, so I don’t expect you to get anything right about the Bible.

        For your own good, and if you have any desire to comment here, you will refrain from any statements even hinting at blasphemy.

        Oh, and before you start whining in response, remember that if your worldview is true then it is 100.000000% responsible for my conversion from atheist to my belief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and for putting you on comment moderation (among other things). So it would be irrational of you to complain about what your beloved Darwinism is solely responsible for.

        And also remember that Darwinism selects for survivability, not truth or reasoning, so you have no rational grounds to make moral claims of any kind or to even trust your ability to reason.

        Like

      7. Blashpemy, or using the name of god in vanity, could be defined as supposing to know the mind of god when a divine event occurs, I don’t believe in god so cannot blaspheme as I will never attribute any action or event to god. Any Christian who believes a prayer to have been answered however, is guilty of blasphemy.

        If you don’t want people with differing views to your own to comment, why have a public blog with open comments?

        Darwinism does select for survivability, thats why humans have not gone on to be more intelligent than they are, the necessary brain & skull size would negatively affect the survival of the species. I can speculate on morality because evolution has brought our species to a point where we can empathise with those around us and predict the effects of our actions on others.

        I don’t believe in anything as whimsical as the ‘spirit’ so I’m not sure if that was meant as an insult or not.

        Like

      8. Blashpemy, or using the name of god in vanity, could be defined as supposing to know the mind of god when a divine event occurs, I don’t believe in god so cannot blaspheme as I will never attribute any action or event to god. Any Christian who believes a prayer to have been answered however, is guilty of blasphemy.

        That’s gibberish.

        If you don’t want people with differing views to your own to comment, why have a public blog with open comments?

        My commenting policy is very well defined. Again, you should “know” that I’m just a slave to my random chemical reactions in my brain so there wouldn’t necessarily be any logical reason for anything anyone does or says.

        Please try to go 2 sentences without contradicting your own worldview. I’m quite serious. Every time you want to hit “submit,” you should carefully re-read your comments and see if they make any sense in light of your worldview. Hint: You are batting zero so far. My worldview explains yours but yours has no rational reason to explain mine — because yours can’t even ground rationality.

        Darwinism does select for survivability, thats why humans have not gone on to be more intelligent than they are, the necessary brain & skull size would negatively affect the survival of the species.

        Another “just so” Darwinian fairy tale. Predictable.

        I can speculate on morality because evolution has brought our species to a point where we can empathise with those around us and predict the effects of our actions on others.

        More gibberish. That doesn’t ground morality at all.

        Like

      9. Say what you like, I know I’m right and you’re wrong. This column is now too narrow. end.

        Like

      10. What would you call a mind that devises lifeforms like what you see on Earth? Even a single-celled organism contains more information than the Library of Congress. We’re expected to believe that a random, atheistic universe rolled the dice something like 243,548,983,231 times, and came up snake eyes every time.

        That’s what the Theory of Evolution attempts to tell us, with its purported progression of atoms to amino acids to proteins to cells to multicellular organisms.

        You really don’t think that’s patently absurd? You still think ID proponents are the ones clinging to dogma and not science?

        Like

      11. No it doesn’t, evolution states the mutations are random, very occasionaly 1 of these will be helpful to the organsim involved and this will increase its chances of being passed on the next generation. With time it will become common in the local population etc.

        Where exactly is the science in ID? Is it falsifiable by experiment?

        Like

  2. Intelligent Design is religion. The propositions are all religious, and so are the arguments.
    The argument asserts that we can tell design because of certain characteristics of the Creator (all assumed characteristics, or characteristics drawn out of a religious book). It’s an argument built on question-begging.
    Intelligent Design is not science. For starters, ID does a good job of ignoring “stupid design” (as Rowan pointed out–there are many example in excess of the ones Rowan highlights). Stupid Design would count as evidence in the debate, by the way. Intelligent Design also cannot explain evidence to the contrary (where as evolution has always answered evidence for ID). For example, ID has never explained the phylo-genetic tree. ID has never explained how an intelligent designer could have allowed so many species to go so extinct (without calling on religious narratives like the Fall). ID doesn’t account for embryology, bacterial evolution, speciation etc etc.

    Like

    1. You and Rowan made the same mistakes and (deliberately?) misstate ID. That’s convenient. It is remarkable how you assume that even if Darwinian evolution was true that it would disprove God. You all are Romans 1 poster children, tipping your hands at every turn.

      Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

      Like

      1. At least you admit that it doesn’t. As per my original post, you also understand, then, why the stakes here are much higher for the Darwinian side than for the ID side.

        Like

    2. Intelligent Design is religion. The propositions are all religious, and so are the arguments.

      This is another one of those claims that evolutionists (well, atheistic ones) seem to go back and forth on at will. For example Dawkins believes the “God hypothesis” as he calls it can be considered scientifically, and of course he believes science disproves the existence of God. If science can disprove it, then it can be considered scientifically, ergo, it is a scientific proposition.

      And as Neil rightly pointed out, design considerations are already utilized by science, especially when considering the differences between artifacts and geofacts in archeological studies – so this statement is patently wrong.

      Stupid Design would count as evidence in the debate, by the way.

      Again a contradiction. On one hand you claim intelligent design considerations are not evidence for intelligence, but ‘stupid design’ is evidence against intelligence. You can’t have it both ways. In fact, when we say something is badly designed, we are utilizing design criteria to evaluate it.

      Nonetheless, bad design isn’t neccesarily antagonistic to the idea a system is designed – obviously versions of Windows software have many flaws, but no one would say that is evidence the software wasn’t designed at all.

      For example, ID has never explained the phylo-genetic tree.

      The imagined ‘phylo-genetic tree’ exists only in the minds of evolutionists. And while the tree remain the prevaling metaphor, it is increasingly being called into doubt.

      Of course there are lots of findings that Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain so well, and which the design paradigm explains much better. Like how independently diverged eurayotic lines have developed the ability to synthesize sterols. Or how different lineages end up with similar genomic features recur in disparate genomes. Or way adaptive genetic changes occur in the same way if evolutionary change is suppposed to be a stochastic process.

      ID has never explained how an intelligent designer could have allowed so many species to go so extinct.

      ‘Species’ is a human designation (a spurious one at that) – there is no reason to expect in a variable world for a set number of organisms to exist at any given time.

      ID doesn’t account for embryology, bacterial evolution, speciation etc etc.

      As I pointed out above, evolution fails to actually explain many aspects ofthe above phenomena – and I am not sure what aspects you don’t think ID explains.

      In reality, evolution doesn’t really exist as a theory anymore except in the broadest terms. Between epigenetics, lateral gene transfer, the mechanisms of gene amplification and silencing, etc, there are many mechanisms that have been placed under the general umbrella of ‘evolution’ really have nothing to do with the sort of change envisioned by Darwinian evolutionists.

      Like

      1. I’ll gloss over the bad science and just focus on where you respond to me badly: the idea that the God hypothesis is scientific is one thing. The idea that you can beg the question of that hypothesis and build a theory into it is unscientific. That that is what ID does.
        Human design is what archaeology looks for. We know humans exist. Therefore archaeology is not question begging.
        Stupid design is something -you- have to account for. Evolution can explain the poor function or weird layout or imperfect or detrimental or relic biology, ID cannot (but needs to be able to).
        Do not confuse the tree of life with the phylogenetic tree, they are not the same.
        Actually, on ID, species is even more robust then in evolutionary terms. Ignoring the necessity to invoke Kinds–a genetically meaningless word–in order to explain how micro-evolution is limited, instantaneous creation means easily defined species (unless you think God is behind evolution, and call that ID, in which case I apologise. I don’t take issue with your stance).

        Like

      2. I’ll gloss over the bad science and just focus on where you respond to me badly:

        Just a note – None of the science cited was from intelligence design advocates, but rather standard scientific journals – not sure why you think it’s ‘bad’.

        the idea that the God hypothesis is scientific is one thing. The idea that you can beg the question of that hypothesis and build a theory into it is unscientific. That that is what ID does.

        If the hypothesis is scientific, then one would expect to build a theory from it. The theory may be incorrect, but it wouldn’t be unscientific.

        Human design is what archaeology looks for. We know humans exist. Therefore archaeology is not question begging.

        It is your answer that begs the question – designs are understood to be ‘human’ when the display complex purpose, i.e. the activity of intelligent agency or ‘intelligent design’. If we found similar purposeful constructions on another planet, we would recognize intelligence there as well, even though it wouldn’t be ‘human’.

        Stupid design is something -you- have to account for. Evolution can explain the poor function or weird layout or imperfect or detrimental or relic biology, ID cannot (but needs to be able to).

        So you are saying that of a found a computer, but it worked poorly, I would have to coclude that computer was the result of unthinking incidental forces?

        Do not confuse the tree of life with the phylogenetic tree, they are not the same.

        They are for all practical purposes interchangeable on the larger scale.

        Actually, on ID, species is even more robust then in evolutionary terms. Ignoring the necessity to invoke Kinds–a genetically meaningless word–in order to explain how micro-evolution is limited, instantaneous creation means easily defined species (unless you think God is behind evolution, and call that ID, in which case I apologise. I don’t take issue with your stance).

        This response makes me think you don’t actually know much about ID. ID doesn’t invoke ‘kinds’ and ID doesn’t require ‘instantaneous creation’ either. ID simply posits that one can detect the work of intelligent agency in the organization of living structures and systems. You should at least understand what you are criticizing before you criticize it.

        Like

  3. “The ever-crumbling Darwinian evolution propaganda is so deliberately and aggressively politicized…”

    Charles Darwin was a minister. He was a man of faith. And he was a man of science.

    Evolution is a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is not about whether or not evolution occurs…evolution is a indisputable scientific fact. The theory of evolution describes where, when, how and the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

    Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. To call the theory of evolution propaganda and intelligent design a true scientific theory is hypocrisy.

    Like

    1. John, if you think Darwin was a “man of faith” then you need to do some serious research here. It isn’t hard to discover his real beliefs, regardless of what he said for political and religious expediency. Not surprisingly, fake Christians with an agenda don’t mind lying about being fake Christians.

      Like

      1. It doesn’t matter at this point whether Darwin was a minister or not. I doubt even he would adhere to his own theory if he were alive today. It turns out that living things are exponentially more complex than they were thought to be 150 years ago when he wrote Origin of Species. It started out as an attempt to explain some unusual animal species found in the Galapagos; and since then has been co-opted to “explain” how all life arose on this world.

        Life does not arise from nonliving matter. Period. End of discussion. Even the Darwinists can’t tell you by what mechanism that it does.

        Like

  4. “…evolution is a indisputable scientific fact.”

    “Evolution” is a general term. Aspects of evolution are agree upon by both camps. Other aspects are not. The notion that complex life forms evolved from simple life forms is NOT an indisputable fact.

    You also don’t seem to know much about ID to proclaim that it is not scientific, or less so than evolution. I find that a rather subjective opinion without some concrete argument to support it.

    Like

  5. “Evolution is a scientific theory.”

    Correct.

    ” … evolution is [an] indisputable scientific fact.”

    Only in its overall concept of biologic progressions.

    “The theory of evolution describes where, when, how and the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.”

    Such as the formation of DNA/ RNA and its coding, enzyme and protein synthesis functions, prokaryote to eukaryote and subsequent gonochoric formations (two sexes), and the evolution of cognition/ consciousness. Then the purported mechanisms for the various progressions [adaptive traits, novelty, complexity, formation of co-dependent systems] along with explanations for convergent evolution of complex organs/ organelles [eyes, flight functions, and other organ similarities in non-related lineages]?

    Some say it’s as proven and observable a theory as that of ‘gravity’, a somewhat sophmoric comparison, but one still trotted out, generally by layman evolutionists.

    And finally, “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.”

    Correct. It is a viable adjunctive hypothesis within evolutionary theory to sit along side other proposed mechanisms of change. And the actual source(s) of intelligent input, rather than by rote a monotheistic god, could be intelligent mechanisms [James A. Shapiro], multiple designers at interventionary points in time [genetic engineering], surrogates of a higher authority, or God itself. But ID in some form is plainly in evidence.

    And finally, “To call the theory of evolution propaganda and intelligent design a true scientific theory is hypocrisy.”

    They are one theory, multifaceted, and may never be completely resolved.

    Like

    1. “But ID in some form is plainly in evidence” – where? I’ve yet to see a single example that isn’t expained clearer without ID.

      Like

      1. I’ve yet to see one that’s been made clearer by evolution.

        “It all just happened on its own! Somehow!” is not a scientific explanation.

        Like

      2. its not ‘somehow’, we know that genetic mutation happens, we know the life has been on the Earth for billons of years, thus we can deduce that there must have been countless mutations, most negative or neutral but some positive. hence evolution into different species. Make a lot more sense than, ‘someone else must have done it’.

        Like

      3. News flash: the majority of mutations are harmful.
        Wow. You’re busier than a one legged man in a butt-kicking contest today, aren’t you?

        Evolution still hasn’t been able to explain the development of eyes, how gills supposedly turned into lungs, or any of these other transformations that supposedly took place. Try to remember that these incremental “mutations” which were said to have happened, would have left the species in an intermediate state of some kind – somewhere between where they were before and what they later became. During that period, they would have been ill equipped to survive in any environment. For example, a creature with a half-leg, half-fin appendage wouldn’t have been able to walk OR swim particularly well. (And it also makes me ask – if walking on dry land is better than swimming, why do we still have fish and amphibians today?)

        Once again, the Darwinists are the dogmatic ones. ID simply says, “The evidence and reasoning lead us to conclude that none of this could have happened without outside intervention.” I guess you haven’t heard that of late, the evidence for evolution is so flimsy that Darwinists have lately taken to claiming that life on Earth was “seeded” by extraterrestrials. (Of course, that just kicks the can down the road – who created the intelligent aliens?)

        Like

      4. When I wrote that “ID in some form is plainly in evidence”, I was referring to design inferences, or ‘specified complexity’, and examples are rampant within biosystems. But your point, I believe, is that the ‘gene transforming’ mechanisms within Darwinian processes are a much more coherent and parsimonious explanation that goddidit.

        Firstly, if ‘specified information’, [information to build downstream {look-ahead} structures via selected, chance events] is factual, it would certainly fit the ‘parsimony’ descriptor. But is that ‘belief’ coherent? I say no, due to:

        • Intermediates would be required having no selective advantage, and
        • when a particular advantageous alteration occurred, there is no guarantee of a successful conceptual event occurring.

        In short, only micro- or adaptive events with immediate selective advantages are likely be fixed within a population. More complex and buildable, sequential events are:

        • not statistically likely to occur spontaneously, and
        • even if occurring, have no guarantees of being sexually conceived and propagated.

        And secondly, goddidit is not the only proposed alternative. Intervention by gene manipulation, something that we mere mortals are now doing, is demonstrable [our efforts], and viable [it works].

        So if not necessarily God, then who? Within a Cosmos (and biosphere) as extensive as is herein observable, not to mention possible dimensions not readily observable, the supposed non-existence of intelligent agents is what defies logical reality. We are definitely NOT alone in the Cosmos, IMO. And there are multiple observations [spirit entities, alien observances, OBE] to confirm their epistemological likelihood.

        And while science may declare their existences to be beyond scrutiny, I disagree. Anything showing evidences of existence within the cosmic realm is certainly explorable, and yes, ultimately explicable as well. And no, sorry, but it’s NOT magic, a hand-waving write off.

        Like

  6. It is interesting that I’ve yet to see one Intelligently Designed comment opposing ID that actually deals with the post. Same thing on my FB page. People just jump out with the usual fallacies and sound bites. Predictable.

    Like

    1. Well, to be fair, the debate isn’t new. It goes back at least as far as the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Their side has a LOT at stake here. Ours, not so much. If they’re right, it’s really no big deal. If WE are…they’re in a lot of trouble.

      I liked how Ravi Zacharias put it. If they allow a “divine foot in the door,” soon there will be an entire divine torso wedged in the door opening, with Him hammering on the door asking to be let through completely. The Darwinian side sees this as a slippery slope argument – the moment that you allow that observable, testable measurable theories can’t explain the entire story of the universe (or even establish as to how life on Earth got to its present form and diversity…their entire worldview comes crashing down. At the very least, cracks appear that cause people to question their conclusions. That in turn might put their reputations (and most of all, their funding) at risk.

      It really shouldn’t be so threatening – ID by itself tells us little about the nature of a Creator or Designer, merely positing that perhaps there IS one. Obviously we can infer a few things – such a Designer would need to be wise beyond all human understanding, intelligent beyond any human capacity, unimaginably powerful, and a few other such attributes – otherwise no such intelligence would be capable of ordering the universe in the precise way it is observed to be ordered. ID, I think, is perfectly compatible with a Deist view of the universe – that the Creator is there, but simply wound it up like a watch and then walked away.

      It’s much the same story as with MMGW – you save the drama for your mama. As one of my favorite bloggers put it, people getting angry and testy about the skepticism from others are advancing what would more properly be called religion.

      But even the suggestion of a Creator who’s done little or nothing since the origin of life on Earth, is apparently too much for them. Really, it’s a religious and dogmatic claim all its own. They’re fond of telling us that Dawinian evolution is science and ID is religion, but really I think it is the other way around.

      Like

      1. Why is believeing in Aristotle’s ‘unmoved mover’ who is inherrently unproveable and ultimately useless as a concept ‘science’ yet believeing the whole of the universe as we observe it has come to its current form solely through the laws of physics a ‘religion’. How can you see it that way round? If something is proveable or disproveable by experiment, even if we have yet to develop the technology, or had the time, to build that experiment, is it not scientific?

        Like

      2. What part of “the observable phenomena of the universe can’t have been created by random forces; the probability of that is hopelessly remote” do you not understand?

        Like

      3. There is no “experiment” that can be devised to prove evolution. You’re talking about one-time events. The theory makes a claim about a series of events that took place in the distant past. You’re confusing scientific evidence with legal-historical claims. The discussion is less one for a laboratory and more like one that takes place in a courtroom.

        Neil was right about you. Keep whipping that dead horse. Keep trotting-out the tired, refuted, debunked claims about Darwin’s theory. Keep calling ID “religion, not science.” Keep saying it over and over. After the 4,234rd time, maybe you’ll start to believe it.

        Like

      4. Take 2 groups of the same species, sperate them and expose them to different selection pressures, with enough time you will have different species.

        I’m not sure what you mean by ‘dead horse’, its alive and well in the real world

        Like

      5. Take 2 groups of the same species, sperate them and expose them to different selection pressures, with enough time you will have different species.

        The problem is that is not what we observe in nature:

        A genetic study of island lizards shows that even those that have been geographically isolated for many millions of years have not evolved into separate species as predicted by conventional evolutionary theory…

        Like

      6. Dogs turning into dogs, lizards turning into lizards, or finches turning into finches does not prove that bacteria turned into dogs, lizards, finches, or man.

        Like

      7. No, it’s a wild speculation. It’s not observable in action anywhere in the real world. By evolutionists’ own admission, the process takes a much longer period of time that any human lifespan, or even dozens of them.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s