|
Author
|
Topic: Reverse Engineering Assumptions for an Open Science Intelligent Design Theory
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 19. December 2005 13:28
Reverse Engineering Assumptions for an Open Science Intelligent Design Theory
Reverse engineering and architecture discovery are used in modern technology. The common perception of design in biotic and abiotic systems suggests that they may have had an Intelligent Cause (or have been caused an by an Intelligent Designer.)
Consequently, inferring equivalent design principles and rules may be useful in current or historic science and engineering and for reverse engineering and designing biotic and abiotic systems.
In laying out a methodology for reverse engineering to develop a general theory of Intelligent Design, it would help to clearly identify and state the assumptions made as distinct from goals, principles and rules. Various assumptions such as an open systems basis of science have been described. (This was the assumption of almost all founders of most of the major fields of modern science in contrast to the recent a priori assumption of materialistic naturalism.)
I propose here to state a set of explicit assumptions designed to be generally applicable to the practice of intelligent design for current or historic systems, as well as to an origin theory of intelligent design.
Primary Assumptions for an Open Science Theory of Intelligent Design:
1) Intelligence: Direct and indirect intelligent causes exist, including human beings and intelligent systems made by them.
Direct and indirect intelligent causes include intelligent beings, and systems formed by intelligent beings.
(E.g., human beings exercise and describe actions we ascribe to intelligence, such as communicating, interacting with issues and problem solving, and use objects designed and built by intelligent beings.)
2) Design: Intelligent causes design, build, and/or operate systems.
e.g., We are communicating and detecting communication using numerous designed systems.
3) Detectability: Intelligently caused systems exhibit phenomena that may be objectively detectable and distinguishable from a closed system of natural causes.
Forensic science examines evidence to distinguish intelligent causes from natural causes.
4) Principles: Intelligent causes apply or embody design principles, rules, and/or laws, which may be discoverable from observable evidence, or similar principles may be inferable.
The term “Intelligent Design” is used for efforts to explicitly test for the actual involvement of an intelligent cause, and for searching for design principles, rather than presuming that an appearance of design is illusory.
The original design principles are uncertain but may be communicated by the designer or the designer's acquaintances. Design principles used by human engineers may be used to test for an intelligent cause for the perception of abiotic order in the universe and/or observable biotic information and systems.
E.g., we are communicating using principles and rules of language, word and character codification, definitions, presentation, and keyboard layout etc., which are not describable by natural laws or stochastic processes.
5) Openness: Observable phenomena may be within open systems accessible to the input or intervention of intelligent causes, some of which may be detectable, and might be reproducible.
This assumption incorporates the historic presuppositions of almost all founders of modern science, that there may be causes and phenomena that are not yet known or fully understand. i.e., modeling systems as “black boxes” or "gray boxes."
While assuming order and stochastic processes in the universe attributable to natural laws, this relaxes any a priori presumption that science can only address closed systems operating under known laws. This replaces exclusive "materialistic naturalism," allowing that there may be intelligent or unknown sources for observed phenomena. E.g., use of remote observation and communications systems by casino players and their accomplices may result in game results noticeably different from stochastic processes.
Secondary ID Assumptions - Uncertainties:
6) Means: An intelligent design is nominally a “gray box” wherein observers may not fully understand all the phenomena involved, or how the design was originally prepared or implemented.
The means of implementing the design, may not be known. Some means or equivalent means and parameters might be inferred based on detectable evidence from the current state of the design, or through communication from the designer or from the designer’s acquaintances.
These factors are not necessary to detecting the occurrence of intelligent design. They may not be necessary to infer equivalent principles used in the intelligent design, or to reproducing those designs. E.g., Archeology may identify antiquities such as the pyramids or Damascus steel, without knowing how those objects were originally constructed.
7) Identity: The identity of the intelligent cause(s) are uncertain.
A designer's and implementor's identities might be inferable from available evidence or by communications with the designer, implementor or their acquaintances.
8) Capabilities: The capabilities of the intelligent cause(s) are inferred to be sufficient to achieve the design, but are otherwise uncertain.
Intelligent cause(s) include an intelligent designer and design implementor. Minimum capabilities of the designer and implementor sufficient to accomplish the alleged action are assumed, or inferable from the available evidence. Capabilities beyond that are assumed to be uncertain. Further capabilities may be learned from communication with the designer, implementor, and/or their acquaintances.
In some software reverse engineering or architecture discovery, explicit isolation and safeguards are even established to prohibit contact with the software authors or their documentation while reproducing the capabilities of the software, for legal reasons relating to intellectual property and trade secrets.
9) Beliefs: The beliefs of Open Science and ID theorists and practitioners are uncertain beyond the above assumptions.
Scientists and engineers working with intelligent causes have various worldviews and religious beliefs. The only assumption on their beliefs are the assumptions 1) through 8) above in examining intelligent causes.
Assumptions 1-9 undergird scientific, engineering and technical fields both in current applications and in evaluation of prior events.
The Encyclopedia of Intelligent Design gives the following definition:
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Intelligent_Design
quote:
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. It contends that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design and optimal design. Apparent design looks designed but actually isn’t. Optimal design is perfect design. The adjective “intelligent” in front of “design” stresses that the design in question is actual, but makes no assumption about the optimality of design.
The two most prominent intelligent design theorists are William Dembski and Michael Behe. Dembski has developed a rigorous mathematical method using the criterion of specified complexity for inferring design. Behe's major contribution has been the notion of irreducible complexity and the hurdle that irreducibly complex systems pose for Darwinian evolution.
Marcus Ross similarly defines:
quote:
Intelligent Design - a teleological position that affirms recognition and empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic realms.
Marcus Ross, “Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism” J. Geoscience Ed. V53, n.3, May 2005 p 319-323. http://www.nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf
Questions: Are these assumptions Q1) Necessary, Q2) Sufficient and Q3) Clear to undergird the practice of Intelligent Design?
Q4) Should assumptions be stated permissively or positively?
Some parameters are described permissively, leaving it to the experiment to decide. E.g., whether evidence of intelligent design exists or not.
By contrast, in developing a particular theory of ID, some may wish to explicitly assume the existence of an intelligent agent, and then compare the results of theory with observations or experiment in contrast to theories assuming the opposite, such as macroevolution.
Q5) Does 1) need to be stated, or is it sufficiently implicit in 2)?
Assumption 2 is a subset of 1 but is stated for clarification.
Assumption 3 may include Intelligent Design as the source of natural law and order. Dembski’s Explanatory Filter has been proposed to detect such evidence of Intelligent Design. Assumption 3 particularly rebuts the false “straw man” argument that Intelligent Design is an ad hoc process with no discoverable methodology.
Assumptions 6) and 7) explicitly clarify that in general Intelligent Design addresses evidence of intelligent causes.
Intelligent Design is agnostic as to the identity and capabilities of the Intelligent cause (Designer, implementor and designed objects) that is or was the source of the Intelligent Design in current or historic designs, or in origin theories. I.e., whether it is or was a human being, an extraterrestrial (a.k.a. “little green men,) the Supreme Being, the Creator of particular religions, or other natural or supernatural beings, whether historic or current as appropriate. e.g., the SETI project.
Assumption 5 is stated generically to apply to the detection of current or historic intervention by intelligent causes including input of Intelligent Design, or intelligent beings, as well as for an origin theory applicable to biotic and/or abiotic realms of the universe.
Assumption 8) is given to explicitly distinguish ID from theories appealing to particular religious beliefs and sources.
Q6)Are 6-8 actually assumptions or should they be stated as implications of 1-5?
In analyzing origin theories, Marcus Ross further lays out eight criteria distinguishing various design based theories versus evolution:
Teleos (A) Real design does not (0) or does (1) exist in the abiotic and/or biotic realm.
Detectable (B) Design is not empirically detectable (0), or it is (1).
Agency-The nature of the designing agent is:
C) Corporeal, having a physical body, (0) or noncorporeal (1).
D) Intrinsic to/united with the universe (0) or transcendent to it (1);
E) Deistic, being responsible for the initial formation of the universe only (0) or Theistic, which includes both initial formation and subsequent interaction with the universe (1).
Biological Continuity (F)- ancestry among organisms is continuous (0) or discontinuous(1);
Age (G)-the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years (0) or approximately 6,000 (1).
These assumptions relate to the Ross Criteria as follows:
Teleos A) From 2), Real design and designed objects exist among human beings as the intelligent causes.
From 2) Real design may exist in abiotic and/or biotic realms.
Detectable B) Design by humans may be detectable. By extrapolation, design by intelligent causes in general may also be detectable without knowledge of how or when that occurred.(whether by terresterial, extraterrestrial or supernatural intelligent beings.)
Corporeal C) Human beings are corporeal. Noncorporeal agents capable of detectable phenomena may exist and may cause or have caused such detectable phenomena due to intelligent causes.
D) Intelligent causes (Designing agents and designed systems) exist within the universe e.g. Human beings exist and design, and make computers and technological systems. Transcendent design agents may exist and similarly design with at least similar capabilities as intelligent causes.
E) Deistic or Theistic design agents may exist and such design efforts may be detectable as intelligent causes.
Biological Continuity: F) Biological continuity may be continuous or discontinuous. Discontinuities may be discoverable. e.g., the origin of life, and the Cambrian explosion.
Age G) Intelligent Design and evidence of intelligent causes are agnostic as to age.
In a separate forum, I propose to summarize specific features of “Intelligence” and “Intelligent design” that can be used to form a theory of ID. E.g., see
Terry Mullet: What is intelligence anyway?
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000587.html
I have not yet read through all the brainstorms. Where these or similar assumptions have been collectively addressed in particular brainstorms or publications, please provide references or links to those citations with my apologies.
In this forum I ask participants to focus their discussions on the necessity, sufficiency and wording of these assumptions, and to leave the design goals, principles and rules etc. to other forums.
Dec. 22, 2005: Expanded 4 into its components, added short titles and rearranged to delineate and clarify issues.
Casey Luskin states:
quote:
Design proponents simply refer to an "intelligent cause" because the available information from the empirical data don't allow design theorists to scientifically infer any more than "mere intelligence" as a cause. . . .
Intelligent causes are valid objects of scientific study, and make valid explanatory causes. "Higher powers," "Supreme Beings," or "Supernatural Creators" would be beyond the reach of study through the scientific method, and thus cannot be referenced as a scientific explanation.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/pennsylvania_associated_press.html
I have tried to incorporate Luskin's observations. Do these capture the principles and read smoothly? Is discussion of "intelligent causes" too stilted?
CHANGE HISTORY
December 29, 2005. Added Assumption 8) to clarify missunderstandings about assumptions of ID.
March 4, 2006. Typo. Added "Beliefs:" to 8.
March 14, 2006. Edited 7) to add "sufficient but".
March 14, 2006. Edited 8) to add " beyond the above assumptions". With associated discussion. See post below.
May 29, 2006. Changed "appearance" to "common perception." Corrected grammar, typos, & punctuation: implementor, inferable, acquaintances.
Changed Assumption 2:, clarifying detectability and adding "distinguishable from a closed system of natural causes." See post below.
Changed 3): deleted "some of," changed "equivalent" to "similar," and rearranged. See post below. Changed discussion on 3) See post below.
4) Deleted "possibly."
Clarified and rearranged discussion of 5) See post below.
Edited discussion of 5) Openess; 6) Identity; 7) Capabilities; See post below.
Changed discussion of 8) from:
"come from numerous religious beliefs."
to
"have various worldviews and religious beliefs."
September 4, 2006
1) Added: "Direct and indirect ... including human beings and systems made by them"
7) Added: "inferred to be sufficient to achieve the inferred design, but are otherwise"
Renamed title: "Primary Assumptions"
4) & 5) Swapped assumptions 4) and 5) to group into primary and secondary assumptions.
Added secondary title: "Secondary Assumptions - Uncertainties"
2) To clarify, split into 2) Design: and <3) Detectability:, and renumbered.
9) Added "Open Science"
Discussion of:
1) Direct and indirect intelligent causes include intelligent beings, and systems formed by intelligent beings.
2) e.g., We are communicating and detecting communication using numerous designed systems.
3) Detectability: Forensic science examines evidence to distinguish intelligent causes from natural causes.
[ 05. September 2006, 00:30: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 20. December 2005 17:52
Jonathan Wells declared:
quote:
"...ID could function as a "metatheory," providing a conceptual framework for scientific research. By suggesting testable hypotheses about features of the world that have been systematically neglected by older metatheories (such as Darwin's), and by leading to the discovery of new..."
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 02. January 2006 17:45
Here is a proposed definition of "Reverse Engineering" for the ISCID encyclopedia.
"Reverse Engineering (RE): Analysis of a product or system to identify its components or processes, and associated parameters and interrelationships, and to infer higher abstractions in order to recreate the design, and/or to improve engineering design of information, energy or material products and systems. These abstractions may include the design goal, objectives, principles and processes used to develop and make the products or processes. vt to reverse-engineer. adj reverse-engineered.
Breeching confidentiality agreements covering reverse engineering, or selling reverse engineered products covered by patent claims without licensing, is illegal. Reverse engineering to discover and use trade secrets is legal.
In Intelligent Design, Reverse Engineering involves analyzing abiotic or biotic phenomena to infer possible goals, objectives, and design principles used by one or more Intelligent Designers, to then explain and predict observable phenomena, for engineering design including biomimetics.
See: architecture discovery, biomimetics."
Definitions of "Reverse Engineering"
Online Website Definitions of "Reverse engineering"
E.J. Chikofsky and J.H. Cross II "Reverse Engineering and Design Recovery: A Taxonomy" in IEEE Software, pp 13-17, IEEE Computer Society, January 1990.
This definition is formulated to apply to current, historic, or origin Intelligent Design by any Intelligent Designer whether terrestrial or not. Welcome your critique.
[ 02. January 2006, 18:35: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 06. January 2006 20:54
Hi David,
I wonder if you are aware that a big Japanese corporation is presently trying to reverse-engineer the bacterial flagellum - in order to understand its "engineering" and thereby enabling the company to produce nano-motors! The website which has great motion graphics of the flagellum and which is stunning in the enormity of the operation is here
- Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 14. March 2006 21:43
Expanded 7) to add "sufficient but" read:
7) Capabilities: The capabilities of the intelligent cause(s) are sufficient but uncertain.
Added "sufficient but" to indicate that the designer is assumed to have the capabilities sufficient to be the cause, whether we understand the mechanism or not. However, the full capabilities of the intelligent cause beyond those sufficient capabilities are held to be uncertain.
Expanded 8) to add "beyond the above assumptions" to read:
8) Beliefs: The beliefs of ID theorists and practitioners are uncertain beyond the above assumptions.
Scientists and engineers working with intelligent causes come from numerous religious beliefs. The only assumption on their beliefs are the assumptions 1) through 7) above in examining intelligent causes.
[ 14. March 2006, 21:57: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 29. May 2006 18:22
In Assumption 2), clarified from:
"2) Detectability: Intelligent causes design, build, and/or operate systems which may exhibit phenomena that can be objectively detected."
to:
"2) Detectability: Intelligent causes design, build, and/or operate systems which exhibit phenomena that may be objectively detectable and distinguishable from a closed system of natural causes."
Changed "appearance" to "common perception." Corrected grammar, typos, & punctuation: implementor, inferable, acquaintances.
In 3) deleted "some of."
Changed 3) from:
3) Principles: Intelligent causes apply or embody design principles, rules, and/or laws, some of which may be discoverable or equivalent principles may be inferable. from observable evidence.
to:
3) Principles: Intelligent causes apply or embody design principles, rules, and/or laws, which may be discoverable from observable evidence, or similar principles may be inferable.
Changed discussion on 3) from:
"The term “Intelligent Design” is used to explicitly refer to the actual involvement of an intelligent cause as distinct from any appearance of design."
to:
"The term “Intelligent Design” is used for efforts to explicitly test for the actual involvement of an intelligent cause, and for searching for design principles, rather than presuming that an appearance of design is illusory."
and from:
"This assumption may include attributing the abiotic or biotic order and/or information observable in the universe to Intelligent Design."
to:
"Design principles used by human engineers may be used to test for an intelligent cause for the perception of abiotic order in the universe and/or observable biotic information and systems."
Changed discussion of 5) from:
"(E.g., the use of remote observation and communications systems by casino players and their accomplices that result in actions noticeably different from stochastic processes. By doing so, we assume the historic presuppositions by almost all founders of modern science, including modeling systems as “black boxes” or "gray boxes" where there may be causes and phenomena that we do not yet know of or fully understand. In particular, while assuming order and stochastic processes in the universe attributable to natural laws, we relax any a priori presumption that science can only address closed systems operating under known laws. We explicitly reject any exclusive "materialistic naturalism," and allow that there may be other sources for observed phenomena."
to:
"This assumption incorporates the historic presuppositions of almost all founders of modern science, that there may be causes and phenomena that are not yet known or fully understand. i.e., modeling systems as “black boxes” or "gray boxes."
While assuming order and stochastic processes in the universe attributable to natural laws, this relaxes any a priori presumption that science can only address closed systems operating under known laws. This replaces exclusive "materialistic naturalism," allowing that there may be intelligent or unknown sources for observed phenomena. E.g., use of remote observation and communications systems by casino players and their accomplices may result in game results noticeably different from stochastic processes. "
Changed discussion of 6) Openness:
from:
"e.g., an intelligent designer and design implementor. The designer's and implementor's identities might be inferable from available evidence or by communications with the designer, implementor or their acquaintances."
to:
"A designer's and implementor's identities might be inferable from available evidence or by communications with the designer, implementor or their acquaintances."
In discussion of 7)Capabilities.
deleted "e.g.," "Some." Changed "purposes' to "reasons."
[ 29. May 2006, 22:13: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 29. May 2006 22:06
This post is rearranged into the following Assumptions and Discussion for the ISCID Encyclopedia:
-----------------------------------------
Assumptions for Open Science Intelligent Design:
An Open Science Intelligent Design Theory makes the following assumptions for current or historic systems, and for an origin theory of intelligent design.
1) Intelligence: Intelligent causes exist.
2) Detectability: Intelligent causes design, build, and/or operate systems which exhibit phenomena that may be objectively detectable and distinguishable from a closed system of natural causes.
3) Principles: Intelligent causes apply or embody design principles, rules, and/or laws, which may be discoverable from observable evidence, or similar principles may be inferable.
4) Means: An intelligent design is nominally a “gray box” wherein observers may not fully understand all the phenomena involved, or how the design was originally prepared or implemented.
5) Openness: Observable phenomena may be within open systems accessible to the input or intervention of intelligent causes, some of which may be detectable, and might be reproducible.
6) Identity: The identity of the intelligent cause(s) are uncertain.
7) Capabilities: The capabilities of the intelligent cause(s) are sufficient but uncertain.
8) Beliefs: The beliefs of ID theorists and practitioners are uncertain beyond the above assumptions.
Discussion
1) Intelligence: Humans exercise and describe actions they ascribe to intelligence. E.g., communicating, interacting with issues and problem solving, and use objects designed and built by intelligent beings.
2) Detectability: Direct and indirect intelligent causes include intelligent beings, and systems formed by intelligent beings. e.g., Humans communicate using numerous designed systems.
3) Principles: The term “Intelligent Design” is used for efforts to explicitly test for the actual involvement of an intelligent cause, and for searching for design principles, rather than presuming that an appearance of design is illusory. Design principles used by human engineers may be used to test for an intelligent cause for the perception of abiotic order in the universe and/or observable biotic information and systems.
E.g., we are communicating using principles and rules of language, word and character codification, definitions, presentation, and keyboard layout etc., which are not describable by natural laws or stochastic processes.
4) Means: The means of implementing the design, may not be known. Some means or equivalent means and parameters might be inferred based on detectable evidence from the current state of the design, or through communication from the designer or from the designer’s acquaintances.
These factors are not necessary to detecting the occurrence of intelligent design. They may not be necessary to infer equivalent principles used in the intelligent design, or to reproducing those designs. E.g., Archeology may identify antiquities such as the pyramids or Damascus steel, without knowing how those objects were originally constructed.
5) Openness: This assumption incorporates the historic presuppositions of almost all founders of modern science, that there may be causes and phenomena that are not yet known or fully understand. i.e., modeling systems as “black boxes” or "gray boxes."
While assuming order and stochastic processes in the universe attributable to natural laws, this relaxes any a priori presumption that science can only address closed systems operating under known laws. This replaces exclusive "materialistic naturalism," allowing that there may be intelligent or unknown sources for observed phenomena. E.g., use of remote observation and communications systems by casino players and their accomplices may result in game results noticeably different from stochastic processes.
6) Identity: A designer's and implementor's identities might be inferable from available evidence or by communications with the designer, implementor or their acquaintances.
7) Capabilities: Intelligent cause(s) include an intelligent designer and design implementor. Minimum capabilities of the designer and implementor sufficient to accomplish the alleged action are assumed, or inferable from the available evidence. Capabilities beyond that are assumed to be uncertain. Further capabilities may be learned from communication with the designer, implementor, and/or their acquaintances.
In some software reverse engineering or architecture discovery, explicit isolation and safeguards are even established too prohibit contact with the software authors or their documentation while reproducing the capabilities of the software, for legal reasons relating to intellectual property and trade secrets.
8) Beliefs: Scientists and engineers working with intelligent causes have various worldviews and religious beliefs. The only assumption on their beliefs are the assumptions 1) through 7) above in examining intelligent causes.
Assumptions 1-8 undergird scientific, engineering and technical fields both in current application and in evaluation of prior events.
[ 30. May 2006, 22:05: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 04. September 2006 23:16
September 4, 2006
1) Added: ", including human beings" to read:
1) Intelligence: Intelligent causes exist, including human beings.
7) Added/changed: "inferred to be sufficient to achieve the inferred design, but are otherwise"
7) Capabilities: The capabilities of the intelligent cause(s) are inferred to be sufficient to achieve the design, but are otherwise uncertain.
Regrouped to form four primary assumptions, and four secondary assumptions or statements of unknowns or uncertainties. i.e.:
Renamed title: "Primary Assumptions"
Primary Assumptions for an Open Science Theory of Intelligent Design:
Assumptions: 4) & 5) Swapped assumptions 4) and 5) to group into primary and secondary assumptions and added a secondary title.
Split 3) Detectability into 3) Design: and 4) Detectability and renumbered. i.e., to read:
Assumptions for Open Science & Intelligent Design
Open Science, including Intelligent Design Theory, makes the following assumptions for current or historic systems, and for an origin theory of intelligent design.
Primary Assumptions for Open Science & Intelligent Design:
1) Intelligence: Direct and indirect intelligent causes exist, including human beings and intelligent systems made by them.
2) Design: Intelligent causes design, build, and/or operate systems.
3) Detectability: Intelligently caused systems exhibit phenomena that may be objectively detectable and distinguishable from a closed system of natural causes.
4) Principles: Intelligent causes apply or embody design principles, rules, and/or laws, which may be discoverable from observable evidence, or similar principles may be inferable.
5) Openness: Observable phenomena may be within open systems accessible to the input or intervention of intelligent causes, some of which may be detectable, and might be reproducible.
Secondary Assumptions - Uncertainties:
6) Means: An intelligent design is nominally a “gray box” wherein observers may not fully understand all the phenomena involved, or how the design was originally prepared or implemented.
7) Identity: The identity of the intelligent cause(s) are uncertain.
8) Capabilities: The capabilities of the intelligent cause(s) are inferred sufficient to achieve the inferred design, but are otherwise uncertain.
9) Beliefs: The beliefs of Open Science and ID theorists and practitioners are uncertain beyond the above assumptions.
Posted to: ID Assumptions at ResearchID
[ 05. September 2006, 00:31: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic