Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Evolution in the Key of D: Direction (RJS)

posted by Jesus Creed Admin

We have taken something of a detour the last several weeks, but I would like to get back to John F. Haught’s book  Making
Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life
.  One of the common complaints about evolution from the point of view of faith is its purported rambling waste and its meaningless wander. One of the aspects stressed by evolutionary materialists is its purposelessness and contingency. Haught suggests that both of these are off the mark and miss the beauty of God’s creative vision and power.

There is, Haught suggests, a direction and a purpose to creation, but we will not see the intent and direction at the level of chemistry and physics any more than we see the intent in  To Kill a Mockingbird at the level of grammar and spelling. Even less will we see the meaning at the level of the chemistry of paper and dyes, the engineering of the printing press, or the materials chemistry behind the electronic ink or electronic paper of a Kindle or Nook or other e-reader.

If God is involved in evolution, in any case, this involvement can be expressed only in the language of analogy, symbol, myth, and metaphor. The nature and depth of God’s relationship to evolution, I suggest, is as inaccessible to the science of biology as the meaning on this page is to the equations of chemistry. … Understanding chemistry is helpful, …, but chemical expertise can tell you nothing about what the author is trying to say here. (p. 70)

The naturalist who insists that the be all and end all to life is found within the laws of chemistry and physics and the outcome of undirected natural selection is an expert in grammar who misses the plot and direction. Haught says it well:

Evolutionary biology and theology, analogously, may be looked upon as distinct levels of reading the drama of life. They are not rivals competing for your allegiance. Knowing that life is shaped by natural selection is one level, comparable to that of discovering the rules of grammar. Trying to understand what the story of life is about is another. And just as the meaning expressed on this page does not show up on a grammatical analysis, so any theologically interesting meaning the life-story might have cannot manifest itself in the formal concepts of Darwinian biology. Discerning any deeper meaning in the struggle, striving, success, and failures in life requires another kind of interpretative skill than that of expertise in scientific method. (p. 72)

What is the plot and direction of life? Is the concept of plot and direction even meaningful?

I think that Haught hits on an important point here. I am not a theist because I find gaps in the grammar and spelling that
require direct action of God – I am a theist because I believe in a
plot, purpose, and direction that transcends the nuts and bolts of
the grammar and spelling. There is more to life than the laws of chemistry and physics.

From the Christian side. But if the evolutionary naturalist misses
the boat by assuming that spelling and grammar are sufficient to
describe the plot of life – where do Christians often miss the boat?

Christians, Haught suggests, also miss the boat by overlooking
the importance of plot and progress. The story as it is generally told commences with the fall, without the fall there is nothing – no plot, no story. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the reading of Genesis 1-2.  But we live in a world and a universe
with potential in the process of becoming.  The story of of
Genesis 1-2 is the story of humans created with a purpose and a job, as part of
God’s mission. Humans are to rule over and “subdue” creation, to
cultivate the land, to be fruitful and multiply, to live in
relationship. Humans were not placed in a static, perfect place to exist and
to worship. Human freedom and creativity requires the power to become
and transform. Without this we cannot be created “in the image of God.”

Theology including evolution. Because of the plot and drift to life a theology that includes evidence of evolution can be constructed. Haught’s book tries to do this.

According to Haught a theology of evolution will note (p. 73):

(1) [T]he general drift of life has been in the direction of increasing complexity, consiousness, and freedom.

(2) [T]heology may attest that in its
overall advance, that what this drama is about is the liberation of
nature from an endless imprisonment in lifeless and mindless
determinism.

(3) [S]ince the God of boundless love
revealed in Jesus influences nature by way of attraction rather than
force, a Christian theology of evolution may assume that God enlivens
and gives meaning to the world not by pushing it forward from the past,
but by calling it into the freshness of an always new future.

(4) [T]he “purpose” of the evolutionary
drama consists, at the very minimum, of the intensification of
creation’s beauty, a beauty that, to the Christian faith, is
everlastingly sustained and patterned anew within the life of God.

The final meaning to the drama and
unraveling of the story of life is, as yet, unknown. We have only hints
and glimpses. It is not retreat to some perfect static Garden, but
greater and more profound. Haught suggests that beauty and aesthetic
transformation is part of the direction. The hope for the future allows
us to participate fully in the drama of life.

A final thought. Now this discussion (and no doubt the
whole of Haught’s book) won’t answer all of the questions about a
theology that embraces evolutionary creation, but it provides a start
and a number of interesting ideas. I don’t think that there is anything
in the biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation that should lead us
to envision a “perfect” initial creation. Perfection has no future, no
becoming, no direction. Genesis 1-2 presents us, from the very
beginning, so it seems to me, with a vision of creation with a future. Haught’s view of God in this process seems a bit impersonal. I think a theology of creation should put more emphasis on a personal God and on the incarnation. Perhaps Haught will get to this later in the book.

What do you think is the purpose and direction of creation in Genesis 1-2?

How does this influence your understanding of the Biblical story and your view of evolution as consistent or inconsistent with Christian faith?

If you wish to contact me, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(26)
post a comment
RD

posted August 3, 2010 at 8:13 am


I think the purpose of Gen 1-2 is to try to explain how all of the percieved world came into being, why life is so difficult, why all things die. Gen 1-2 is a written account of a long told oral tradition. Almost every ancient culture has a “beginnings” story. This is the “beginnings” story of the ancient Hebrews. I think the first several chapters of Genesis are very disjointed, really. They are individual snippets. Cain and Abel are discussed but then never mentioned again in the OT. We have the flood narrative (a very edited story of an account of an ancient flood). It seems that the early chapters of Genesis are a kind of sputtering beginning to the entire drama of the Hebrew people, and that the story doesn’t really get cranking until Abraham arrives on the scene.
You make an interesting comment in your piece, RJS, when you say, ”
The story as it is generally told commences with the fall, without the fall there is nothing…” There seems to be an increasing examination of this idea of the fall/original sin among many lay Christians and many noted Christian writers/theologians/pastors. The traditionally held belief is that the fall resulted in an eternal sin stain that was passed on to every future human being who has ever been born, or who ever will be. But, there seems to be a growing feeling among many Christians that the account in Gen 1-2 does not imply this notion at all.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted August 3, 2010 at 8:59 am


I like the four point summary of Haught:
complexity, liberation, freshness and intensification…
All of the potentiality within the created order. Lots to think about for me.



report abuse
 

pds

posted August 3, 2010 at 9:29 am


The Design Spectrum
He says elsewhere:
“Meaning or purpose simply cannot show up at the level of scientific analysis.”
Why not? Does he support this assertion? I don’t see any Biblical support for this pessimistic attitude. Even Francis Collins sees evidence of design in his analysis of the fine-tuning of nature.
Romans 1:18-20 presents an obligation to us. Part of the gospel is to proclaim that evidence of God has been clearly given in the things that have been made.
Meyer has shown that design is the currently the “best explanation” for the origin of life. I think that there is a rich spectrum of design evidence in nature. We do a disservice to the people around us to ignore this, or pretend otherwise.



report abuse
 

Kenny Johnson

posted August 3, 2010 at 11:52 am


@pds
“Even Francis Collins sees evidence of design in his analysis of the fine-tuning of nature.”
I would assume that FC would say that the evidence he sees for design is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 3, 2010 at 1:27 pm


Kenny
As to the idea of design being philosophical and not science, I wonder. I just read the article in National Geographic about whale evolution, and the description of the evolutionary changes that occurred. Yet it all seemed to be somehow intentional as opposed to random, the explanation was otherwise too neatly put together for the design factor not to be part of the process – a reality obviously not simply for whales but for the entire spectrum of life, don’t you think? Hence, at some point the science needs to address it.
The article makes claims like “Nostrils slid back up the snout toward the crown of the head, becoming blowholes. Over time, as the animals dived deeper, their eyes began to migrate from the top toward the sides of the head, the better to see laterally in the water. And whale ears grew ever more sensitive to underwater sound, aided by pads of fat that ran in channels the length of their jaws, gathering vibrations like underwater antennae and funneling them to the middle ear.” Full article is at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text/7.



report abuse
 

Kenny Johnson

posted August 3, 2010 at 1:54 pm


@Bill
I should be clear. I’m not making any claims about whether assuming design is a philosophical or scientific claim. I’m only responding to pds’ comment about Collins. From what I know about Collins, he holds to scientific methodological naturalism, so he’d likely understand his appeal to design as a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one.
I’m sympathetic to ID claims. I think they present a compelling case as to why scientific naturalism isn’t always sufficient.



report abuse
 

Justin Topp

posted August 3, 2010 at 2:24 pm


I’m not sure what to make of all this, but I should point out that I haven’t read this book. I like his differing layers analogy a lot. But how can he say that the science can tell us nothing about intent and then come up with the 4 points for his “theology of evolution”? Are these not at all informed by the science? I’m confused.
I should say that I find it very difficult to posit a natural theology or theology of nature that adequately describes a God of theism. A God of deism is much easier for me, as I can look at the order within nature, the anthropic principle, etc. and appreciate what that says about the God who started it all. But how do we describe the action of the God that sustains it as well? This is the million dollar question for natural theology and no one has answered it sufficiently, at least for me.
scienceandtheology.wordpress.com



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 2:29 pm


RD,
I think the “traditionally held” belief that the fall resulted in “an eternal sin stain” was not consensus, especially in the early church. It is rooted substantially in Augustine. While Augustine was a great Christian thinker – he did not get everything right. The view is deep in reformed theology, not as foundational (I think – but am willing to be proven wrong) in RCC and some forms of protestantism, and is not significant at all in the eastern orthodox church.
Peter Bouteneff wrote a book Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives that goes through the early church fathers – before Augustine – and comes to roughly this conclusion. I posted on the first four chapters of the book, but never finished it.
You might find the book useful. You will find the posts on the blog if you search on Bouteneff.



report abuse
 

RMahoney

posted August 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm


First off – beautiful. Thanks for posting this.
@pds
I think that scientific analysis as we understand it is not equipped to grapple with existential questions of broad meaning or purpose. That is not to say that observation, even scientific observation is not a crucial tool in a form of analysis that does address meaning and purpose.
Looking at shapes on a page and understanding how letters come together to make words and how words come together to make sentences is part of understanding what the author is writing. But it takes more than that. It takes an understanding of how words and sentences come together to make meaning, how they become more than the sum of their parts, expressing something beyond what is explicitly written.
Creation is the words on the page, and a careful reader can easily grasp the divine nature behind the words. But the reader needs tools beyond grammar and spelling.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 2:50 pm


pds,
Haught has plenty to say about “design.” He testified against ID at the Dover trial. But I do not really want to get into the negative in this series of posts. As you well know I don’t think Meyer has demonstrated anything even close to design as a best hypothesis, but I also think that Haught goes overboard in his criticism (especially some of his rhetoric).
I would really rather concentrate on the positive aspects of Haught’s thinking in this series of posts.
Meaning, purpose and direction – plot and story. This is where we see evidence of design. It is a layer above chemistry and physics. This is perfectly consistent with Romans 1:18-20.
In fact, I think that fine-tuning in the universe is only evidence for design if we find that there is meaning, purpose, and plot to the world we see and experience.
Without purpose the fine-tuning just “is” – whether though multiverse (some variant) or some of the more far-fetched proposals (like Dawkin’s suggestion that natural selection may play a role).



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 3:04 pm


Justin,
This is definitely worth more discussion – but in a layered approach perhaps we can take the analogy with a book a bit further.
There is the chemistry and physics – science, but not really evidence for something larger. Like the mechanical method of printing in a book (ink, paper, etc.).
Next there is the order within nature, the anthropic principle, etc. that seems to border on deism … but this is analogous to grammar. We see that there is something bigger, but no evidence as to what.
Then we have plot where there is a story and a purpose, in life, in our experience. This is where we get beyond deism into a theistic view. This is also where I would move from a view consistent with Gos as impersonal being to the view of a personal God who interacts in the plot and story in creation. God isn’t remote author – but rather a part of the continuing plot.



report abuse
 

pds

posted August 3, 2010 at 3:16 pm


The Design Spectrum
Kenny #6,
My reading of Collins is that he considers design to be the best explanation of the scientific data, based only on the facts and logic. It does not seem that he “understands his appeal to design as a philosophical assumption.” I have linked to a good article discussing his argument:
http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/francis-collins-design-argument/



report abuse
 

pds

posted August 3, 2010 at 3:31 pm


The Design Spectrum
RJS #10,
You said,
“Meaning, purpose and direction – plot and story. This is where we see evidence of design. It is a layer above chemistry and physics. This is perfectly consistent with Romans 1:18-20.”
Perhaps it is “consistent,” but did Paul intend to rule out other kinds of design arguments? Would he have drawn that tidy little box? Your comment seems to me like eisegesis, rather than good exegesis of that passage.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm


pds,
I don’t think that the discussion we are having about natural theology was even a twinkling in the back of Paul’s mind.
Lets look at Romans 1:18-21

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

It seems to me what we have here is not an argument for design at the level of ink and paper (chemistry and physics)- but perhaps grammar and certainly plot, purpose and relationship.
Nature is awe-inspiring and the plot of the world points us to God, His righteousness and His ways. We have no excuse.



report abuse
 

pds

posted August 3, 2010 at 4:59 pm


The Design Spectrum
RJS #14,
Paul bases it on “toi poiemasin”– “things made.” I don’t see why you would assume that it is limited to “nature is awe-inspiring.”
Dallas Willard in Knowing Christ Today mentions Stoic philosophers contemporary to Paul who were making design arguments based on things showing “marks of contrivance.” (pp 99-100)
In Acts 17, he alludes to theistic convictions of the Stoics:

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24″The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28’For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
29″Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone?an image made by man’s design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”



report abuse
 

Justin Topp

posted August 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm


RJS,
Okay, but why can’t I be the author of the book then?
I like the analogy, but analogies aren’t perfect and I think the authorship portion would need some work then. There’s just no reason to assume that God is the author. The book or play could be an improv.
Potentially quantum physics (or for me, quantum biology) or top-down information, etc. as Russell and Polkinghorne and other suggest may provide us with a theistic natural theology, but I’m just not sold yet. But… natural theology is just one component of theology, I might add.
captcha: the mortals



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 5:35 pm


pds,
Because none of this has anything to do with intelligent design in the sense of scientific empirical evidence for design. It is all at a bigger level – it isn’t simply nature is awe-inspiring; it is purpose and plot and power, in all – through all.
But that is the whole point – it isn’t a test-tube experiment; it is an experiential realization.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm


Justin,
Perhaps we are talking across each other because I don’t quite see your point.
What do you look for from natural theology?
As to author – well, if there isn’t an author then it is only improvisation. Certainly a possibility.
But then there is no plot, no purpose, no direction is there?
What do you mean by author? Perhaps something different than I mean by the analogy.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 5:46 pm


Justin,
The analogy is imperfect for sure. I don’t mean author in the sense of a micromanaged determinism. A script written and now being played out.
There is a level of free will and improvisation – but within constraints of plot and playing field. Both plot and playing field are elements in a natural theology perhaps.



report abuse
 

Justin Topp

posted August 3, 2010 at 5:53 pm


RJS,
“But then there is no plot, no purpose, no direction is there?”
Exactly. As a Christian, I obviously don’t agree with this but many other intellectuals do. Having no positive theology for how God interacts with the world currently is quite likely to lead to deism, which can then lead to a-theism. While natural theology is only one component of theology, you and I know that it’s a very important one for those like us with a scientific background. I feel that we need a strong theistic natural theology to counteract this.
I am coming at this from the perspective of the atheist, I think. From what you’ve written here, it seems like the plot, purpose, and direction is the way to add another layer to the natural explanation, but it requires a previous faith in the God of the Bible. So you’re coming at it from the perspective of the Christian.
Does this help?
captcha: guerrilla-type percy (?)



report abuse
 

DRT

posted August 3, 2010 at 6:32 pm


Great thread. Shut me up and that’s not always easy.
I know there is a direction and the direction is given by directional invitation thereby making the direction a direction that is only directionally correct. There will be waste. For some of us the only way to know we are on the right path is to take some other paths to see where they will lead. I would think the species may have a similar randomness about it…
pds, I think you continue to make a mechanistic argument that does not have that simple of a mechanism. Sure one could say the evolved nature is consistent with the designed hypothesis, but that is far from causal. To say it is directional due to process of elimination is quite different than saying it is directional due to, well, manifest destiny, if you will.
Justin, I agree with you but don’t reject the intermediate point for lack of having a definitive end game. Sure it may lead to deism to adopt the directionality without a comprehensive theology, but it also may not. And the humility that comes along with the acknowledgment that we don’t have it figured out could lead more to staying with the theistic premise than having a poorly reasoned but firmly believed premise. I for one, am grossly turned off by proclamation without the appeal to reason, thought, reflection and personal experience. I think it will gain more currently atheistic folk in the long run.
In general, I think there is an arrow, but I don’t know where it is going. I also don’t think we (in the CHRISTIANITY) sense are on the right track with it. Now, imo, is one of the times that it may make sense to step out of the trenches and take the weak god approach to help sway the pursuit back on track. I think and feel the strong god and strong knowledge tract has gotten out of hand and I for one would like to be able to acknowledge the directionality without the destination.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 3, 2010 at 6:33 pm


Justin,
Ah…we were talking past each other. I was thinking about this book more from the side that thinks that evolution for any number of reasons is incompatible with theism in general and Christianity in particular. I was not thinking about this from the point of view of trying to convince an atheist that Christianity is probable.
Where would you look for a positive natural theology? Something that might be convincing to an atheist?
I don’t think that science is the right place to look for this at all, except at layers that transcend the merely physical and chemical.
So I think that consciousness and free will are places to look – in the realm of self driven autonomy and choice within constraints. We would then see evidence for God in relationship not in natural history or natural process.



report abuse
 

pds

posted August 4, 2010 at 9:21 am


The Design Spectrum
RJS #17,
“Because none of this has anything to do with intelligent design in the sense of scientific empirical evidence for design.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument. I am looking at the text in its cultural context. You seem to be asserting nothing but personal opinion. Are you basing your position on something in the text?
I think it is an interesting topic, if you or Scot ever want to wrestle with the text and the theistic arguments common at the time.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 4, 2010 at 3:51 pm


pds,
Why do you think that the text in its cultural context has anything to do with what we consider science?



report abuse
 

pds

posted August 4, 2010 at 5:49 pm


RJS,
What we consider science is not the issue I am addressing. I am addressing Haught’s dogmatic statement about where “purpose” can show up.
My original comment:

He says elsewhere:
“Meaning or purpose simply cannot show up at the level of scientific analysis.”
Why not? Does he support this assertion? I don’t see any Biblical support for this pessimistic attitude. Even Francis Collins sees evidence of design in his analysis of the fine-tuning of nature.
Romans 1:18-20 presents an obligation to us. Part of the gospel is to proclaim that evidence of God has been clearly given in the things that have been made.
Meyer has shown that design is the currently the “best explanation” for the origin of life. I think that there is a rich spectrum of design evidence in nature. We do a disservice to the people around us to ignore this, or pretend otherwise.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted August 4, 2010 at 8:50 pm


pds,
How would meaning or purpose show up at the level of scientific analysis? What does this have to do with Romans 1:18-20?
I don’t think meaning and purpose can show up at the level of scientific analysis.
Even if there is a gap that is (as yet) inexplicable by “natural” process – what does this tell us about meaning and purpose? I don’t think it can reveal anything more than that there is something that is “supernatural.” It says absolutely nothing about what that something is. It certainly tells us nothing about righteousness or moral law, meaning, or purpose. After-all we could be lab mice, toys, food of some sort, or something even less consequential.
But Romans is much more explicit:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
This isn’t a revelation of the existence of a supernatural being – a God – this is knowledge of righteousness and unrighteousness.
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
“Within them” is again a reference to an inborn understanding of right and wrong not scientific evidence for God.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Seeing his eternal power and divine nature again does not refer in any way to scientific understanding of creation or biology (or a gap in such knowledge). Rather his eternal power and divine nature is something we perceive with an innate understanding as we standing in awe of the creation around us. But such awe is independent of the mechanism of creation.
So where do you think I am wrong and why?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.