But he's not even agnostic!

Richard Colling is in big trouble. He's a biology instructor who is getting slapped down by his college and his community.

Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college. In a letter to Bowling, ministers in Caro, Mo., expressed "deep concern regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientifically proven fact," calling it "a philosophy that is godless, contrary to scripture and scientifically unverifiable." Irate parents, pastors and others complained to Bowling, while a meeting between church leaders and Colling "led to some tension and misunderstanding," Bowling said in a letter to trustees.

He must have done something truly horrible! Why, he sounds like some kind of godless atheist who is trying to pry his students away from the loving embrace of the church. Here's a little more about his unconscionable religious leanings:

A professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois and a lifelong member of the evangelical Church of the Nazarene, Colling wrote a 2004 book called "Random Designer" because--as he said in a letter to students and colleagues this year--"I want you to know the truth that God is bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known." Moreover, he said, God "cares enough about creation to harness even the forces of [Darwinian] randomness."

What? He's some kind of devout Christian who has an argument (that I won't believe for a moment) that evolution is the mechanism his god used to create life on earth. That's fairly standard theistic evolutionism, I would think.

But it's not good enough for his area of Illinois. The rest of the article describes a few other attempts to reconcile Christianity with science, all futile, all buried in the noise of the fundamentalists.

The lesson is clear. You aren't going to be loved for trying to accommodate science in religion, so you might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

More like this

According to Newsweek there's trouble brewing at Olivet Nazarene University: There may be some battlefields where the gospel's “blessed are the peacemakers” holds true. But despite the work of a growing number of scholars and millions of dollars in foundation funding to find harmony between…
I just finished reading Massimo Pigliucci's Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. I highly recommend this book as one of the best refuations of creationism out there. Also, he gives a very nuanced view of what science can and can not elucidate. While it won't change…
I have a good deal more synmpathy for the plight of religious scientists than most of my fellow ScienceBlogs bloggers. For example, I'm willing to believe that people can both have sincere religious faith and be practicing scientists, without assuming that they're either brainwashed or evil. I…
Apropos of our discussion of the proper interpretation of Genesis, Kelly James Clark, writing at Huffington Post, summarizes the state of play at some Christian Colleges: Shortly after the 2004 publication of his book, Random Designer, biologist Richard Colling was prohibited from teaching…

[quote]In a letter to Bowling, ministers in Caro, Mo., expressed "deep concern regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientifically proven fact," calling it "a philosophy that is godless, contrary to scripture and scientifically unverifiable." [/quote]

Since when is evolution a philosophy?

By Fyodor Baggins (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

In a letter to Bowling, ministers in Caro, Mo., expressed "deep concern regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientifically proven fact," calling it "a philosophy that is godless, contrary to scripture and scientifically unverifiable."

Now what kind of stupid is that? That is real stupid. I'm talkin stupid stupid.

Not really though. They're just ignorant. Sorry for calling them stupid. :-)

Well, it is all a matter framing. Evidently Colling did not bend over backwards quite far enough. I am sure Mooney could have eased him backwards a little more so everyone would be won over to science.
Give me a break! Maybe UMM shold offer him that temporary post.

Richard Colling is a heretic. How quaint. Heretics have become a bit scarce in the 21st century.

Not that heresy hasn't become more common. But ever since the churches lost the power to burn people at the stake it has become less of a big deal.

Some churches still have church courts where heretics can be tried, convicted and kicked out. The Mormons do this. The Catholic church used to excommunicate people right and left but these days I don't know how often it happens.

Oh the irony of them being almost on top of the Mazon Creek fossil beds...

Colling has been Expelled. Do you think Ben will add that to his movie?

Yeah, but what I hate is getting hanged for a fucking unicorn.

By Scott Simmons (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

"deep concern regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory as a scientifically proven fact," calling it "a philosophy that is godless, contrary to scripture and scientifically unverifiable."

Excuse me? "Unverifiable?
This is one of the many things that ticks me off about creationist. They are either ignorant of the science or they purposely lie about the facts. Evolution is incredibly verifiable.
Where do they think drug resistant Tuberculosis came from? God did it?
What do they think is happening when the HIV virus mutates if not evolution?
How do you get pesticide resistant bugs or herbicide resistant weeds? Is that not evolution?
What exactly is Phylogenetics mapping if not the branches of mutation and natural selection?
Do they think DNA doesn't exist?
Unverifiable my A$$

Ok, let's apply the same critique to your philosophy. Go ahead and verify God for me. Go ahead and set up a repeatable test to which the only answer is "God did it."

I'll wait.

I prefer "uncle" Elbert Hubbard and the Roycrofters -- but mostly for decorating my craftsman bungalow.

(Elbert) Hubbard's second wife, Alice Moore Hubbard, was a graduate of the New Thought-oriented Emerson College of Oratory in Boston and a noted suffragist, and the Roycroft Shops became a site for meetings and conventions of radicals, freethinkers, reformers and suffragists. Hubbard became a popular lecturer, and his homespun philosophy evolved from a loose William Morris-inspired socialism to an ardent defense of free enterprise and American know-how. Hubbard was much mocked in the press for "selling out." The American science fiction writer and founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, was a nephew of Elbert by the adoption of his father into the Hubbard family.

Oops, wrong thread.

[quote]the Church of the Nazarene has deemed knowledge acquired by science and human inquiry equal to that acquired by divine revelation. And although Nazarene theology "believes in the Biblical account of creation" and holds that God is the sole creator, it allows latitude "regarding the 'how' of creation," as president Bowling put it in a letter to trustees.[/quote]

Ah! Familiar territory! Being raised by a Nazarene minister and the product of one of their colleges, I can attest to this mindset. When it comes to defending faith from science, evangelicals like the Nazarenes are astounding apologists. Most subscribe to what I now think of as a "dualistic universe" in which science controls nature, but there's still the "spiritual realm" which operates independently, except of course, when it conveniently needs to interact with nature.
This looks like the cracks are beginning to widen in their logic. Growing up, I always found this type of double explanation to be disingenuous. It still doesn't address the bizarre beliefs, rituals and stories that believers are required to adhere to. Its a disconnect from their tenets of faith to prevent from sounding completely stupid in the modern world. Sounds like they've decided its OK to be stupid.

I have family in the Church of the Nazarene, and was taken to a service when I was living in the US of A a few years ago. The word that springs to mind when remembering the service is "crazy". Compared to the (few) Church of England services I'd been to (none of which I'd describe as sane) this was bonkers.

Don't give the Nazarene church the time of day. They appeared to me to be quite crazy.

"Random Designer" should be a straightforward oxymoron to anyone who isn't severely compartmentalized.

Colling has been Expelled.

Very good point.

By David Marjanović (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

Someone burned down a fundie church near where I used to live. No it wasn't an atheist shouting Dawkins Ordered Me. It was a teen age kid of one of the members who apparently was working through some issues with the church.

I'm not at all sure what the denomination of the church was. They all sound the same. But the name, Church of the Nazerene seems to ring a bell.

Clearly all Colling needs is a good peacemaker who can frame his point of view in order to make it acceptable to the faithful.

By JohnnieCanuck, FCD (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

at the end of the first section, the article PZ links to says:

It's a rude awakening to scientists who thought the Galilean gulf was closing.

uh, anybody with half a brain could have told them that NO scientist thinks that the kind of religion these folks adhere to can be bridged by anything with a rational component to it.

rude awakening? hardly. completely expected more like.

if churches are really the primary funder of this college, as implied in part by the article, then let them go down in flames, I say.

If they insist on shooting themselves in the head, why stop them?

My grandfather was brought up in the Nazarene Church -- his father was a minister there. He spent his whole life trying to overcome the indoctrination he received as a child. Thankfully, his experiences led my mother to raise me in a religion-free environment and the chain of abuse was broken. But, I'm sorry to hear the Nazarene's are still making people's lives miserable in the new millennium. Perhaps Madeleine Bunting should visit one of their churches next time she's in the U.S. to see why we have such strong feelings about religion.

JohnnieCanuck, FCD, (#16, above) would that be a .45 calibre, long Colt Peacemaker?

By Elliott (anoth… (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

#6 "Colling has been Expelled. Do you think Ben will add that to his movie? Posted by: Doug"

Wow Doug I thought PZ was popular. Just one post and that guy has about 1400 comments!

Greg-- What do they think is happening when the HIV virus mutates if not evolution?

Havent you read 'Edge of Evolution'?? Their story is HIV doesnt evolve. HIV is 'pathetic'.

*blink*

As far as the Nazarene church, they hold a special place in my heart. I spent the night at a friends house on a Saturday night when I was in second grade. Spending the night at a friends house on a Saturday means you had to go to church on Sunday morning. No big whoop to me, as a 7 year old, as church meant 'Sunday School' where you got to hear stories and color and paint and such.

But this friend was a Nazarene.

Its when I first realized that people actually believed in 'Jesus' and 'Satan.'

Screwed me up for two weeks, to the point where I was sent to the school councilor for freaking out about Hell all the time. Luckily, he calmed me down, and I went back to thinking Jesus was as real as dragons and ghosts.

Worst two weeks ever.

Boo, Nazarenes. Boo.

The sad thing is he has bent over too far to sit with real science and not far enough for the fundies. Crazy stuff. Maybe some good will come of this and Collins will think through the issues and embrace logic and perhaps the same will happen for some of his ex students. Where there's life there's hope.

That isn't a real University is it?

I have no sympathy for the god-intoxicated, evangelical idiot.

God and Darwin don't mix.

By CalGeorge (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

Yikes, ERV.

I'm glad you got straightened out.

I'll point out to PZ that this one experience with this one sect is one datapoint, and doesn't let us know one way or the other if "framing" or "appeasement" or whatever it's called this week will or will not work with the majority of folks who believe in mud-breath-and-rib abiogenesis.

But it's not good enough for his area of Illinois.

Huh? Where did that come from? I didn't see anything in the article about the community. Bourbonnais is halfway between Chicago and Champaign-Urbana. I'd be surprised if it's a hotbed of fundamentalism.

Really, I just wanted to say hotbed of fundamentalism. :)

I have no sympathy for the god-intoxicated, evangelical idiot.

God and Darwin don't mix.

Hm. I disagree.

For all that I've been arguing with a fantastically obtuse creobot about the lack of evidence for God, anyone who says "The evidence of biological science is at least as true as the traditions we have about our holy books", or some equivalent thereof, is better than those who blindly assert that the evidence of biological science isn't evidence.

Or to put it another way, some commitment to truth and learning is better than none.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

Or to put it another way, some commitment to truth and learning is better than none.

sorry, must have missed it?

where was the commitment to truth and learning in:

The evidence of biological science is at least as true as the traditions we have about our holy books

to me, there is little, if any difference in the mistaken notion of what constitutes "evidence" between that and someone who simply denies all evidence exists.

both are lies. one is based on denial, the other on projection.

choose your poison, but don't for a second think that either poison is any less lethal to rational thought in the long term.

now, if you can get either representational positions to actually recognize what the word "evidence" actually means, THEN you can claim to be making progress.

Outside of Chicago, all of Illinois is a hotbed of fundamentalism, although the hotness increases as one travels further south.

RE #29 "Outside of Chicago, all of Illinois is a hotbed of fundamentalism, although the hotness increases as one travels further south."

This afternoon I began driving across Iowa and expect to cross into Illinois tomorrow or early the next day. Playing radio roulette today I found Focus on the Family. Shall I turn off the radio and listen to tapes? Shall I roll up the windows and turn up the air conditioning to fend off the heat of this hotbed? Help me.

Gerry L.-

Check out http://www.shgresources.com/il/radio. One of my acquaintances used to like listening to Rush Limbaugh on long drives because it kept him so angry he was in no danger of falling asleep.

PZ-

That area of Illinois is mixed. Some of the most liberal folks you'd like to meet live there and also some fundy whack-o's. I blame it on the belief, not the geography.

By tourettist (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

" Heretics have become a bit scarce in the 21st century."

Are you kidding? It's one of the top motivators for violence between muslim factions.

-jcr

By John C. Randolph (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

"Where do they think drug resistant Tuberculosis came from? God did it?"

Of course! Didn't you know that god hates people who go to hospitals or use antibiotics?

-jcr

By John C. Randolph (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

""Random Designer" should be a straightforward oxymoron"

Oh, I don't know about that.. Seen much modern art lately? ;-)

-jcr

By John C. Randolph (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

That was peacemaker, as in "blessed are the peacemakers", a reference to the Newsweek article being linked to in the post.

It seems a lot of Christians have gone to war with the intention of making peace by the use of weapons. Ironic.

Ahh, yoyo,

That's Richard Colling we're discussing, the theologist who espouses theistic evolution.

Not to be confused with Francis Collins, physician and genome scientist who espouses theistic evolution. You know, the man who was interviewed supposedly for his book and then found himself in a documentary called "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" put out by Coral Ridge Ministries. He has objected to the deceit and misrepresentation of his views in the film.

Is there an echo in here? See the following This could be me... post about Cristopher Heard's experience with creationist 'documentarians'.

By JohnnieCanuck, FCD (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

to me, there is little, if any difference in the mistaken notion of what constitutes "evidence" between that and someone who simply denies all evidence exists.

Hm. A little difference, perhaps. But still a difference. Think of it as an opening for a wedge, perhaps. Heh.

Someone who looks at the evidence and agrees with it is at least open to learning, and might, at the very least, transmit that openness to those students who learn from such a teacher.

Yes, I realize that in this case, the fundamentalists won. But elsewhere, reason might win.

A faint hope is still nonetheless a hope.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

There's often a large intellectual disconnect between
Christian universities and the denominational churches that support them. Many
professors at Christian universities passionately support the evidence for
evolution with no apology for their faith. Without trying to over-generalize
like many of the above comments, you will always have fundamentalist Christians
and pastors within the ranks of moderate churches. You may not agree with
Christianity but to paint an entire denomination with one wide brush stroke is
idiocy. A few disgruntled ex-Nazarenes don't tell the whole story either.

You wouldn't want to waste your time actually studying the
matter would you? If you have some time to kill, try this

article
by Stan Ingersoll. Unfortunately, churches (and even some
denominations) can be hijacked by fundamentalists. But certainly, within the
Nazarene church and others like it, there are thinkers that seek the positive
interaction between their faith and mainstream science.

Of course if
you are anti-religious, by all means, denounce Christians. But if you want to
see Christians come to a better understanding of science and respect for the
separation of church and state, then help try to find a solution rather than
pour fuel on the fire and give Christians more reasons to distrust scientists
and disregard atheists.

By peak_bagger (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

Of course if you are anti-religious, by all means, denounce Christians. But if you want to see Christians come to a better understanding of science and respect for the separation of church and state, then help try to find a solution rather than pour fuel on the fire and give Christians more reasons to distrust scientists and disregard atheists.

Posted by: peak_bagger | September 10, 2007 11:23 PM

Christians need no reason but the ones they have and they are sufficient by and of themselves. Any "help" given by the victims of their persecution is immaterial.

This not only goes for science, but the separation of church and state. One thing I do is to point out that if they destroy that wall, whose Christianity to we follow? Because you damn well know that the denominational wars will start soon there after. Just like they did in the 1800's. Just like they do in even "civilized" countries, like Northern Ireland where the minority religion held the power over the majority religion.

Do you want to be a Mormon? A Scientologist? A Catholic? Get stuck in some hate-based evangelical church? Or one the eschews doctors and demands "faith healing?"

Because that's what the Christianistas are gunning for. Reliving the bloody history found in Protestant Reformation... Or any other doctrinal conflict.

I'd have a little more respect for those moderate 'True Christians', if they were a lot more successful in marginalising the Fundamentalists they disagree with so very strongly.

As it is, one could be forgiven (!) for thinking they don't mind hiding behind the radicals and getting the benefits from their lies without having to commit that particular sin themselves.

By JohnnieCanuck, FCD (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

Love your site PZ!
Yeah faux-religious nuts of this ilk are threatened (rightfully!) by any message more inspiring than their own, since it likely could lead to loss of their own power and influence. This guy sounds sort of like the preacher in "Contact"...in a good way.

By St Paul E Wog (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

I keep a list of religious colleges which I update regularly to include the latest purveyors of superstitious twaddle disguised as "Christian education", so I can warn off anyone tempted, for whatever reason, to flush their money down the toilet by sending their kids to these medieval hellholes. It might be handy for employers to keep a list, too, to avoid hiring "graduates" of these schools (ala the Regent University idiots loosed on our government). I can't believe that any reputable business or school would want to hire someone with a dubious degree in biblically-based biology, geology, etc.

I'm adding this Nazarene asylum in Illinois to the list.

moses: like Northern Ireland where the minority religion held the power over the majority religion

Not quite true. Currently Protestants are about 53% of the population and RC's are 44%[the rest are other or none, which would seem to be a wisest choice given all of the mischief caused by religious]. Those Protestants were there due to resettlement of Scots and a few English in the early 17th century. Prior to 1922 it certainly was true for the whole of Ireland.

By natural cynic (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

*sigh*

One of these days I'll stop the loser's strategy of common sense optimism.

Look, evolution is scientific fact. Any reasonable person who explores science and the world will discover that. So, if said someone happens to be a Christian and happens to believe God created the world and all life, and if this someone is not persuaded to relinquish his theistic belief, this someone will have to conclude 1) life evolved and 2) god exists so he must have used evolution to create life. That's just common sense (*if* one wishes to keep one's theistic views). It isn't framing; one's not viewing evolution in terms of religion. It isn't compromise; he's accepting science fact and holding on to his theistic beliefs. It isn't cobbling some hybrid religeo-science; One isn't hypothesizing why or how God did anything or why or how evolution works and one realizes one isn't a researcher in a position to hypothesis and one also realizes truth doesn't change just because you make up a hypothesis about how you want the world to be.

This is common sense. This is the most reasonable conclussion one can reach if one doesn't wish to give up one's belief in God or in God as a creator.

So, you'd THINK the college which does not want its professors and students to give up their beliefs in God or as God as the creator would want one to take this belief.

You'd think if a college and a church forces one to choose between religion and evolution, they'd be afraid some folks might choose evolution as ... well as it's a scientific fact staring them in the face.

*sigh* This is why I'm niave and why I'm going to lose and die in a world covered in dark ignorance...

Scientists aren't forcing anyone to choose between religion and fact. Religious wackos are forcing people to choose.

It isn't evolution that over 50% of the public don't want to accept. It's the belief that evolution requires that there is no God and one is a stupid moron for believing in the first place. And this is proven by a bunch of finch somewhere on some island. It isn't creationism or literal bible interpretation that they find believable. It's the belief that there is another group of scientists that have an equally valid theory that doesn't require you to believe you are a moron for believing in God. And it realizes that the finches are just finches.

I mean I believe the people around me and in my family whom I love are human beings and not a bunch of holographic robots. So if someone were to tell me that the red shift of some nebula proves that the entire human race except me are holographic robots, I'd doubt those conclussions, wouldn't you. I mean, it's probably a good idea for me to study just what I assume about what human beings are and what I actually know, and just what the red shift does and doesn't imply, and whether the red shift is fact or not. And, if it really *is* true all humans are robots, I really should realize just because I don't want it to be true won't make not true. But still if I'm told the red shift interpretation can only lead to holographic robots, I'd assume there must be something wrong with the red shift theory because I just can't really believe it. Deep down I can't really believe it.

"...by making mutations the raw material of evolution from which natural selection picks winners and losers, God freely opted to limit his omnipotence. It was evidence, Peacocke said, of divine humility."

Mutations = Divine Humility. See PZ? These are the refined arguments that you and Dawkins and your ilk refuse to answer; focusing instead on the crazy people!

By Ick of the East (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink

""Random Designer" should be a straightforward oxymoron"
Oh, I don't know about that.. Seen much modern art lately? ;-)
-jcr

It isn't just "modern art" that uses chance.

Examples include crackle-glaze pottery and the patina on bronze statues. Any performance art has to deal with the unpredictable, including the reaction of the audience.

Where are all the IDists leaping to this guy's defense, screaming 'Teach the controversy!'?

By Brendan S (not verified) on 11 Sep 2007 #permalink

God "cares enough about creation to harness even the forces of [Darwinian] randomness."

This is, essentially, the "theistic evolution" explanation that Vatican scientists have been trying to get the RC Vatican hierarchy to endorse for a few decades - evolution happens, it may appear to be a totally natural phenomenon to those of us living in the universe, but there's nothing about evolutionary theory that says it can't be directed by a force that exists outside the universe (mainly because science doesn't truck with trying to talk about things that are "outside the observable universe" since such statements are inherently unfalsifiable, but they gloss over that).

The fact that this is the Roman Catholic position on evolution may be enough to make the Nazarenes reject it out of hand - there's an awful lot that goes on in Christianity that amounts to "well if THEY believe that then it must be wrong" between the various denominations...

Mea culpa. I've been smitten (smoted, smited?) by a revelation, and now repent most truly.

I have previously thought (from the relative safety of the mostly secular UK) that militant atheism was too much in your face to do good. However when I read

"In the last few months [objections to Colling] took on a new life and became a distraction, and things were deteriorating in terms of confidence in the university," Bowling says. He banned the book in order to "get the bull's-eye off Colling and let the storm die down."

in the article from Newsweek I now appreciate that appeasement leads to suppression of knowledge. That is one of my hot button topics. I may not decide even yet to display the Big Red A, but I could be persauded into displaying the Big Blue R (for Rationalist).

"Where do they think drug resistant Tuberculosis came from? God did it?"

Of course! Didn't you know that god hates people who go to hospitals or use antibiotics?

I knew it! God really does hate humans. It's the only logical explanation. As an amputee I know that god must hate me.
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Luckily, my amputation is only a finger. But I once gave a speech about the creation/evolution debate in a college speech class and one of the "loving, caring Christians" wrote in her review of my speech that I should come back to Jesus or God would take another one of my fingers.
Jeez-oh-freakin-petes those people tick me off.

Help me.

mp3 player. You can get ones that "retrofit" into your car's stereo system.

Greg B -

Actually, the "God hates humanity" explanation for all the bad stuff that happens to humanity is an old one - various Gnostic sects had it at the core of their beliefs that the God of the material world was an evil son-of-a-bitch who pretty much wanted to dominate his creation and inflicted plagues, natural disasters, wars, etc. on humanity to keep them from getting uppity and threatening his status as "Lord of Creation". They postulated a better god that sat outside the realm of the material world that actually could be the source of goodness and morality since the god of the material world was obviously such a bastard.

(And toward the other extreme, there's always the Westboro Baptist sect of Fred Phelps - they actually DO believe that God pretty much hates everyone that isn't a member of the Westboro Baptist sect. An old belief, but one that never seems to go out of style.)

Interesting commentary group.

Is anything truly random? How is this determined? Much of what appears to be random, may in fact not be random at all.
Defining something as random may be reflected more in the intelligence of the observer than the actual events.

I think you would find me to be a staunch defender of Scientific integrity AND a strong advocate for the idea that science does NOT exclude the plausibility of a divine creator.

When it comes to ultimate causation, the hypothesis that natural law is and was all there ever has been or will be, or that there is an intelligence beyond the cosmos and creation who initiated the events seems equally plausible to me. And certainly neither one of these hypotheses is verifiable by current science techniques. So maybe Colling is on to something. At least it seems that way to me. So since science can't provide the answer either way, maybe everyone should just be friends and listen learn together.

That is pretty much it.

Must the Bible and biology be forever in conflict?

I for one hope not.

Colling has been Expelled.

Very good point.

By David Marjanović (not verified) on 10 Sep 2007 #permalink