« If You Don't Get It, Don't Write About It | Main | Doubt and Catharsis »

July 24, 2008

Comments

Leighton

Schneider makes a good point about the "critical mass" of evangelical scholars in many departments. It's interesting that members of a subculture that insists truth isn't socially determined are often the first to claim something is "obviously" true for no better reason than that everyone around them affirms it, but this is really what everybody does to an extent.

I've been to talks by a different Tom Banchoff.

Tim

"... today's atheism is positively fueled by intellectual inquiry."

and

"... lack of support among credible biologists."

Can we get the updated liberal definition of "credible" and "intellectual?"

greg

"liberal definition"? Who put out the troll chow?

Tim

That's "Dallas Tim." I just am too lazy/busy to type "Dallas."

I actually typed several paragraphs and then the browser refreshed and I lost it and didn't have time to retype - sorry.

I just take issue with his claim that intellectual thought is driving atheistic inquiry. Is he saying "only" or does he allow that it is also driving theistic inquiry? If it's both, then the "intellectual" label is irrelevant.

McGrath and Dawkins are both at Oxford and they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. They are both intellectual (McGrath actually has a degree in, I believe it's biology or one of the science diciplines, Dawkins has zero theological degree).

Schneider also says that design had no "credible" support. What? He cites Anthony Flew and says that he doesn't accept the God of the Bible, but what does that have to do with the general acceptance of God? Countless brilliant men (past and present) have touted evidence for design. Typically the "no credible evidence" argument is code language for "the exclusion of anyone who sees reasons for a creator." Credible scientists who see just that are not rare. Flew is just one example. If Flew is credible (he is), then Schneider's comments are immediately voided. If NASA scientists are credible, then the same applies. If people who teach the sciences at Ivy League universities are credible... ditto.

My inital comment was just that terms like "intellectual" and/or "credible" don't really mean what we've historically understood them to mean.

People typically assume we're all using the same dictionary, but according to Schneider's usage, he's obviously not and that's huge when he's making claims like the ones he make in his article.

greg

Tim,

I believe you have attributed the idea of design to Flew. Not sure he believes that. Last I heard he wasn't an ID guy. You're free to make your argument, and I don't disagree that the original statement was a bit hyperbolic, but you shouldn't use Flew to bolster your case if he doesn't agree with your case.

As to the "general acceptance of God", it has nothing to do with it, but the primary arguments against evolution come from literalists, and Flew is not one of them. Support for a literalist read of Genesis usually goes hand in hand with anti-evolutionary rhetoric.

Intellect usually refers to the process of reason and verification. Since nothing in the Xian faith can really be verified, it would seem that something besides intellect is, in fact, driving it. This is not to say that theological arguments aren't valid; they certainly can be. But lacking substantiation of any kind, they might as well be arguing about Shiva.

Leighton

Tim,

There are a number of things you're missing here.

1) Nathan Schneider (the author of the article in question) is not at all advocating the strawman of academia excluding Christians that you seem to be reacting against. He even backs down from some of his treatment of Craig here. If you go back and read his article carefully, his main point is that evangelical Christians should stop misleading people about the motivations of non-evangelicals and atheists. Evangelicals and non-evangelical Christians seem to be his target audience (in some of his older posts, he is much more sympathetic to arguments favoring the existence of God), so I am inclined on that basis to forgive his one-sided exhortation.

2) Schneider does not say that little-d design has no credible support. He says that capitalized Intelligent Design (as defined by the hacks at the Discovery Institute) has no credible support. He doesn't define credible, but it could mean "an active researcher in biology," or "someone who is current in biological literature." Meeting either of those criteria is enough to see through Intelligent Design (notice the capitals) for the sham it is.

3) Tony Flew is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, a scientist. He is a philosopher whose fame derives from having written a number of books for lay audiences. It's absolutely unfair to say philosophers are inherently unqualified to evaluate physical evidence, but they are also not the first people you would want to consult on such matters.

Further, not that it is relevant to this conversation, but he is an old man with a failing memory who could not remember his prior objections to deism when asked by Richard Carrier. What seems to have happened with his "conversion" was that Lee Strobel (who has the chops to be a fantastic criminal defense attorney, and I don't mean that as a compliment) bullied him into some sort of half-baked acceptance of watered-down deism that wouldn't have been persuasive to him twenty years ago with his faculties intact. But even in his current state, he explicitly repudiates Intelligent Design (notice, again, the capital letters).

If you want to disagree with something in Schneider's article, I would strongly recommend reading it again so that you can take issue with something he actually says.

Tim

Greg,

My original post (lost forever) was eloquent and would have convinced you completely that I am right. It figures that it got flushed.

I wasn't saying Flew is head of the ID Club, but as far as design, Schnieder's comment was "... his (Flew's) God of fine-tuning is a far cry from the God of the Bible." I took that to mean that Flew see a God who did fine-tuned the cosmos.

In just the same way ID arguments can't be verified, neither can atheistic ones (can anyone verify that there is no God?) and so the "intellectual" aspect there is not applicable either.

greg

Tim,

This has nothing to do with atheistic claims. You insist on seeing everyting in an either/or framework. Intellectual inquiry is concerned with things that can (eventually) be known. For the time being, they can be measured, replicated, observed, and investigated. We can only "know" what we can verify. You can believe whatever you want. Most of the atheists I know don't say "there is no god." They tend to say something like "there is no evidence for god"; "god seems not to interact in observable ways"; "i just don't care"; or something about how belief or disbelief does nothing to change the way I live. I'm not an atheist in the sense you describe. There might very well be a God, but I'm pretty sure she looks nothing like the God of evangelical Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Until I hear from her, I'll live as if she's not there.

Tim

Greg,

Then the term "Atheist" has been redefined (I can accpet that, I just want to make sure I'm understanding how it's used and your despription makes sense). It is what it is and that's simply how it is. My only response to you would be that the universe and its detail and order is all many need to assume that there must be a creator (however involved He is). This may not be proof, but if you're talking about "observed" evidence, then there's quite a bit.

You also said that it thinking about what can "eventually" be know. How do we know what can eventually be known? Could we assume that we could eventually "know" God exists? Do scientists "know" there was a big bang? We can't really "prove" it, but we base our decisions off of the evidence as we currently have it. I think the same goes for evidence of ID. We can't "prove" it but if it came to anything else as fantastically complex as the universe, we'd laugh at anyone who attributed it to random chance.

We can't replicate evolution because every attempt involves "rigging" the test to replicate what might have randomly happened 10 billion years ago. How is designing a test to replicate something that wasn't designed really replication? Evolution has nothing to do with design, it only reveals what the design may have looked like.

Leighton,

Ok so you don't like Lee Strobel and Anthony Flew has Dementia.

ID or id means the same things to 90% of people in America. God created the universe. He got it started. He was the first cause. He designed Evoltuion. Whatever happened was caused by God. How involved was He?... well that depends, but He did kick it all off.

It's nice that you assume Schneider didn't do us the favor of explaining what he meant. He even used lower case letters in an apparent violation of your rule of ID vs id. The bottom line, and you know this, is that he was attacking intelligent design... period. He may have written another article saying otherwise and he may retract parts of this one, but if I say you're a great guy in one post and a dipshit in another, I can't get mad if someone takes me to task for the latter.

Schneider shouldn't need people like you to explain what he means. It's obvious... no credible scientist accepts ID or id. He clearly says that there is no credible support for intelligent (little "i") design (little "d").

At worst, he is simply wrong and at best he is sending mixed signals. That's his fault, not mine. There are many scientists who agree with design. They are credible and so is the evidence that they use. If atheists don't want to accept it... fine, just don't act (as Dawkins, Hitchen, Harris, etc... all do) as if we're idiots for believing in what they say we can't prove and in what they say has zero credible evidence. They can't prove their version and they're using even less credible evidence.

Zossima

Tim (hello, nice to see you around again), one glaring difference: evolution and cosmology both (at least) produce testable hypotheses. The fact of the matter is that hypotheses related to the big bang have been tested and tested and tested.

ID is built on a premise that is not testable. The premise that god launched a big bang or evolution or created Adam and Eve is not testable at all. Hence, greg's repeated point that you have to rely on something other than logic and science to argue for it.

Even when I was an evangelical-type christian, I recognized that staking the faith on the accuracy of Genesis was lunacy. It cannot be "proved". Not only is it not necessary (Jesus should be evident because of the lives of his followers, not because intelligent design can compete with evolution), I believe it is highly detrimental to the christian mission (however constructed). But such is the state of modern fundagelicalism.

dr dobson

Tim

to chime in with a quick thought here (and I'll admit I have no science-minded dog in this current debate, though McGrath was one of my tutors at Oxford in the early '90s), last time I checked, it was the scientific community simply responding to what amounts to preposterous claims (in their opinion) by the faith community about issues which should remain solely within the realm of the sciences and not faith.

To query this issue more succinctly, the church is best left to develop spaghetti suppers and bingo games and leave the scientists to do their work. Aside from a few rogue exceptions, the faith community picked a fight with an opponent who never wanted to be named in the debate in the first place.

Irrespective of my beliefs on this subject, I can't blame the science camp for simply taking it back to the faith camp with logic, reason and, dare I say, scientific method to show that the faithies have it all wrong when it comes to ID/id.

Why do you get pissed off whenever the witless sap whom you pulled to the party kicking and screaming responds with sound, logical bases for not agreeing with your out-of-water assertions?

You would act in the same manner were the tables turned and science started digging around the holy texts of the world's faith systems in an all-too-easy effort to point out the vast inconsistencies and contradictions, etc.

Keep majoring on such minors and you'll never get past what you should be doing as a member of a community of faith. Why science, in its response to your constant badgering about design this and design that, gets you off of that track is beyond me.

Leighton

Tim,

You're right on the capitals, so my apologies for that. I don't have the experience you do with "90%" of people who think "intelligent design" means "design." I haven't seen "intelligent design" used for anything other than the Discovery Institute's "Intelligent Design" in years. Given the political context of the recent Dover trial, I think that's the most plausible interpretation of Schneider's claim. There are a dozen blogs on my blogroll, several of which are also on Schneider's, which discuss little else. Maybe it's fair to complain of unclear writing if he didn't make that explicit; prior to your comment it wasn't clear to me that he had to.

Philosophers for centuries have argued some sort of "design," but the only argument that gets any airtime in scientific conversations is the DI's ID, and that's only because of political leverage. It has no merit whatsoever, and people who affirm the Discovery Institute's version of Intelligent Design are either uninformed, dishonest or crazy. There are, however, advocates of philosophical design who dispute Behe's and Dembski's spurious arguments and still affirm what is historically closer to classical views of design. I think these are probably the people you want to refer to. Schneider is absolutely correct that no credible scientist affirms ID, but there are a number of credible scientists who affirm design.

That's not to say that their views on the matter are scientific. (But remember, "scientific" is not a synonym for "true", nor is "unscientific" a synonym for "false.") Classical views of design are not testable in a scientific manner: they don't make predictions about what we'll find when we look at very large or very small things, nor do they lead to any new knowledge of the universe. But why would design have to be testable? Why claim the mantle of science for something that is orthogonal to the nature of scientific inquiry? There isn't any obvious reason other than the PR coup it would give apologetics writers.

Good writers and design advocates like Ken Miller don't claim that their view on design is derived from their scientific understanding. They claim it is consistent with it. (You should check him out sometime. You might like Finding Darwin's God.) The difference is hair-splitting for people without a vested interest in how the scientific establishment works, but it's flesh and blood and bone for people who do. So do smart people affirm design? Absolutely. Do they do so for evidentiary reasons? Sort of, not really. Arguments like fine tuning aren't persuasive to people without preexisting faith commitments (and sometimes not even then). But remember, "This argument for X is crap" is a very different animal than "X is crap."

Tim

Zoss,

Thanks, it's nice to have time to participate.

I agree with your position that the "God did it" idea can't be tested.

I think my concern is more along the lines of wondering why we can "know" about the big bang, and event that supposedly happened billions of years ago, but then take something like the resurrection of Christ and can't "know" that. Both are events, neither is testable (we can't test the big bang or even come close to repeating it - we can only study effects and much simpler examples that might represent part of what might have happened, even then our assumptions continue to change every few years) and there is ample evidence for the resurrection. Why is one "known" while the other is "myth?"

Dob,

I think that the faith community is equally frustrated by the scientific communities continued claimed to say, often with suprising certianty, that they "know" (there's that word again) what happened 13.7 billion years ago while laughing at theologians for adamantly stating that we can also be confident in what Luke wrote 2000 years ago.

The Gospels historical veracity has remained virtually in tact for 2000 years. Science changes it's mind every few years. The consistency (or lack of) there is rather stark. I know theologians debate and discuss, but the message regarding the life of Christ is still proclaimed as it was in the 1st century. Science "knows" something different every decade or so.

The problem comes when scientists make fun of the theologian for still knowing what we have basically "known" for centuries, but gets upset when the theologian laughs back for science's update/alteration of what was "known" 6 years ago.

Scientists and theologians both use faith to assume much of their theories. The idea that science has to use less faith or that theologians have to use more is simply not correct.

And the reason design is so important is because God is a liar if He didn't do it. We are told to look at the stars and give Him credit. We just get a little miffed when scientists tell us that there's no credible evidence that he did, while they believe even less credible evidence that he didn't. We like to make clear that there is credible evidence for His involvement and obvious reasons to shun the idea that He can't be accepted.

Leighton,

Help me understand what "design" vs "intelligent desgin" (as you described it) is. What are the credible scientists who affirm "design" saying? Who/what do they attribute the design to?

I appreciate your last paragrpah tremendously. I will check out Ken Miller and your despciption of the difference between "derived from" and "consistent with" was/is very helpful. Thanks!

greg

Tim,

This statement, "The Gospels historical veracity has remained virtually in tact for 2000 years," demonstrates that you either don't listen or do and ignore the implications of what's being said. Their historical veracity has been intact within a group of people who have a vested interest in their being true. The rest of us don't give two shits about how many extant manuscripts there are because the historical veracity argument is a lark. Somehow you always want to work in the authority of Scripture angle and I'm weary of it. It only has authority if you decide it does. And the fact that you don't seem to understand that physicists aren't studying history is maddening. Historical verifiability is an altogether different exercise than scientific verifiability.

dr dobson

DT

As you have rhetorically established for us without even intending to do so, the faith community keeps trying to use scientific method to prove its tenants when science never wanted to be invited to that party.

"The Gospels historical veracity has remained virtually in tact for 2000 years. Science changes it's mind every few years. The consistency (or lack of) there is rather stark. I know theologians debate and discuss, but the message regarding the life of Christ is still proclaimed as it was in the 1st century. Science "knows" something different every decade or so."

Assuming your point for a moment that science changes its mind, are we to suppose that theology never changes its mind? You are arguing in favor of a well-settled universal theological understanding about the meaning of the Gospels and the life and times of Christ. If this were true, then the entire world have been "reconciled back unto Christ" by now. Perhaps the heathen, unsaved world is so wrapped up in its own brand of scientific method that it makes seeing the face of God impossible.

Again, the faith community keeps throwing rocks at science for science's very logical and formed approach to addressing what the faithies have imposed as an overlay: stop using scientific method in your attempt to prove faith step-for-step as if it were science. No matter how fast you mentally masturbate that mixture of oil and water, it will never mix.

Zossima

Tim, I would argue that christians are the ones who relegate the resurrection to mythical status by attempting to prove the Bible via the methods of science rather than exemplifying the Christ-life that the resurrection presumably frees them to do.

As for science changing every decade or so, well we have all these great inventions. Are we to continue to think the earth is flat rather than use our telescopes and satellites? The changes in science are growth.

As for christianity being unchanged, well I'm not sure what history of the church you've read. There has been frequent change in church doctrine and theological thinking. Councils, schisms, reformations, Protestants, Catholics, charismatics, Arminians, Quakers, Calvinists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and on and on. All represent discontinuities in thinking. It's so far from consistency that it shouldn't surprise or bother christians when nonchristians question the Bible--they can't agree on much of it themselves.

Tim

Greg,

Are you saying I'm driving you mad?

Those who study history use methods to assertain the reliablilty of historical events, people, etc... If we use the same methods to review the NT record, then we have every reason to believe it. If we used the methods that liberal theologians use on the Bible on other events, then much of wht we currently accept could not be taught as history because it wouldn't pass the test.

Historians have a Biblical standard and then they have a standard (much lower) for everything else. Kreeft does a good job of explaining this. He is a Phd at Fordham so while I wouldn't blame you for ignoring me, he is a well-reasoned scholar who uses basic logic to explain the discrepancies in accepting the Bible vs. other records.

greg

You're using Kreeft. Sorry to inform you that he's a Catholic, so your version of the Bible is vastly different than his, as is your interpretation. The standard is the same. It's just that the claims warrant more skepticism when they purport to offer salvation and damnation. A few scholars might bicker over Heraclitus, but since he isn't promising hell to the infidels, we needn't worry too much about his accuracy. The Bible is a different story. As I've said before, even if you could prove Paul actually wrote 13 epistles, it wouldn't make them any more true. We'd just know he wrote them. Establishing authorship does not guarantee veracity, only authorship. This is the point where literalists say something like, "But Jesus affirmed the truth..." Great. Jesus as presented in the story, not Jesus at your dinner table. You have to assume the documents are truthful before you can give weight to what Jesus says in them and establishing authorship doesn't guarantee their truthfulness, so you have to make assumptions at that point. This is the fact you keep avoiding. It is at that point it becomes a matter of faith, not history, not science, not logic.

Tim

"...It's just that the claims warrant more skepticism when they purport to offer salvation and damnation."

Bingo. There's the rub. That part takes faith. And faith isn't science (but that doesn't make faith any less credible). You may not agree with the "credible" part, but at least it's Friday.

(CNN is reporting that Cuban just bought the entire state of Oklahoma.)

greg

First you argued that there was a different standard. Now you're agreeing with my point? Just making sure you know what you did there.

And it does make faith less credible. It's alway less credible; that's why it's faith.

Tim

My agreement was in that you are correct about the claims warranting more skepticism because of the implications.

Unfortunately, the implications should have no bearing on whether the claims can stand up to the standards by which we accept historical veracity.

Saying "I accept that because it doesn't really matter", or "I reject that because the implications are too grave" makes no sense, logically.

And it's no less credible than arguing for something that happened 13.7 billion years ago as if we can be any more certain about that either.

The tomb is empty and no one ever, even in the face of torture and death said, "Ok, I'll take you to His body." The most influential man who ever lived and a few fishermen, a tax collector and a zealot fooled the world.

The fact is that saying the resurrection is any less credible than the big bang is simply a display of equivocation based on preconceived notions that refuse to allow anything that might include God.

Zossima
The fact is that saying the resurrection is any less credible than the big bang is simply a display of equivocation based on preconceived notions that refuse to allow anything that might include God.

I love it when people state an opinion, label it as "fact", and act as if it is the holy writ. These hand-wavy judgments are part of the Bible-thumper and Bush-humper toolkit.

Tim, there is far less evidence for the resurrection than there is for the big bang. If you don't believe that, then I suggest you go read up.

Greg's point is that according to the tenets of science, the resurrection is then less credible. It cannot be tested or proved. It thus, takes faith to believe. This is not a statement born of refusing "to allow anything that might include God". Greg would have made the same statement when he celebrated the resurrection.

Dobs point has been that christians insist on holding the Bible to a standard that it can never attain, then complain that the scientists are evil when they point that out. I would add that far from converting people, I think it turns them off. It lessens faith and makes it an ideology. It takes a people who claim that they are to live as victors and makes them professional whiners and victims.

It is less credible by the very definition of credibility, and christians should say, "We live by faith and love" and then show that to the world as evidence of Jesus. (And keep Genesis out of it altogether.)

The fact that nobody has ever been able to produce a body would more credibly indicate there never was one than that he got out, cruised around for 40 days, then ascended from the top of a mountain.

Leighton

Tim,

I don't want to speak too much in depth for design advocates because I don't find their specific view on the topic useful or relevant for my purpose of learning more about the universe, so I would be sure to butcher it. But in a nutshell, the DI's Intelligent Design makes specific, false claims like irreducible complexity (Behe's 3 examples--blood clotting, bacterial flagella and the human eye--are known not to be) and Dembski's and Nelson's mathematical hand-waving (the non-starter of ontogenetic depth, now more than four years overdue for a promised "rigorous fleshing-out" [i.e. a definition] yet still being used in PR literature as a "research triumph," despite its not existing, is a big example). Now, everyone is wrong once in a while. But what happens next is that when ID's arguments are shown to be characterized by non sequiturs (or to not exist at all, in some cases), their response isn't to clean them up and come up with a new, viable research program that gives results like everyone else does. It's to claim persecution by a Darwinist majority and put out the call for Christians to storm liberal blogs and get onto school boards and to yell as loudly as they can that academia isn't welcoming of people of faith--never mind that it's people of faith who are typically most disgusted by their antics and blatant dishonesty.

Other design advocates like Ken Miller and Karl Giberson (How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution is on my list to read)--and let's be clear, design in American discourse always means design by a personal monotheistic God except for some obscure philosophers who rarely if ever write for lay audiences--probably do not agree in all particulars on their views of design, but the key distinction in my mind is that they are not lying about the state of scientific research or trying to get equal time for rubbish in secondary school classrooms. As such, they have a role to play in philosophical discourse for those who care and are interested to look into such things. (Note that I didn't say scientific discourse. There is no place for design in science, not because of anything inherently wrong with the idea of design, but because design advocates to date haven't done the legwork of coming up with a testable model of design--except for Behe's irreducible complexity, which was tested and failed. The reaction against design isn't motivated by ideology so much as "Oh great, not another guy who doesn't understand what a model is. Oh, and this one's paying for commercials. Even better." Like all other busy people, scientists are people with finite time and seemingly unbounded workloads, so they tend to have little patience for well-funded cranks.)

If the Big Bang is wrong, then given the wealth of astronomical investigations we've conducted in the last century, practically everything we know about chemistry and particle physics would be wrong. That would be huge, on a level much bigger than either Newton's or Einstein's revolution. So on that basis there aren't very many people who think it might be wholly wrong (though of course the problem of our equations blowing up before Planck time is viewed universally as problematic). There's more to find out, certainly; but not something that's going away anytime soon. If you care enough (and I'm not suggesting you do or don't), I would be glad to walk you through the models and the mathematics. It's hard to get used to a perspective other than eyewitness testimony being decisive, but once you get that first click, it's obvious for the rest of your life how confident we can be about the distant past--certainly much more confident than about almost everything in specifically human history. Kind of like riding a bicycle.

Unfortunately, the implications should have no bearing on whether the claims can stand up to the standards by which we accept historical veracity.

Saying "I accept that because it doesn't really matter", or "I reject that because the implications are too grave" makes no sense, logically.

How does that not make sense? I require much stronger proof before turning over my banking information from an email correspondent promising to deposit 25 million euros in a windfall from a relative I'm pretty sure I didn't have than I do giving that same information to a teller on the phone to set up automatic payment of my internet bill. It's only the potential consequences that make the difference between those two scenarios. I can litigate the former if he screws me over, but I'm essentially helpless against the latter.

And in practice, holocaust deniers rightfully get a lot more crap in the media and public discourse than moon landing deniers, not because their way of deciding what's true is different, but because the social ramifications of suggesting Jews as a whole are liars are much graver and deadlier than suggesting that NASA and the federal government are peopled with deceivers.

In fact, in years of internet discussions, it's been the case more often than not in my experience that Christians on the verge of leaving the fold stay as long as they do because they say they need their belief(s) to be true; it's the consequences, not the epistemic standing of the belief itself, that is decisive for them.

I don't care to rehash our previous discussions on the evidence for the resurrection, but that specific claim I quoted doesn't seem consistent with the way we actually make decisions as we go about living our lives.

Leighton

I require much stronger proof before turning over my banking information from an email correspondent promising to deposit 25 million euros in a windfall from a relative I'm pretty sure I didn't have than I do giving that same information to a teller on the phone to set up automatic payment of my internet bill. It's only the potential consequences that make the difference between those two scenarios. I can litigate the former if he screws me over, but I'm essentially helpless against the latter.

Switch former and latter. Eep.

Come to think of it, that whole example is crappy and doesn't illustrate my point at all, since it's the difference between receiving unsolicited communications from someone whose identity I can't verify, versus me initiating contact through a publicly advertised channel.

The real difference is that one falls naturally into an established category of email scams, whereas the other is plausibly part of everyday life. That "something different" in the offer of millions of euros is what sets off red flags.

When we have (presumably) a world in which a great many--maybe even the majority--of allegedly supernatural or extraordinary events are false positives, why wouldn't we want to be extra careful when a supposedly unique event comes around?

dr dobson

Leighton

You mean that my great-uncle's third wife of a deceased Nigerian general who just happens to need my personal banking information in exchange for 20% of the US$20million he had amassed in "royalties" due him during his lifetime isn't unique? But she addressed the letter to me personally.

I'm calling my wife right now to tell her to stop sending that information along with the Publisher's Clearing House forms . . .

Leighton

Oh, no, that one's genuine. In fact, he or she contacted me to be the intermediary for your funds...er, the funds scheduled to be delivered to you. So just toss me your account information and we'll have you cleaned out...er, this issue cleaned up in no time.

The comments to this entry are closed.