Cultural Meaning of Scientific Conclusions

18 years ago

This editorial was in my local paper yesterday. I agree with the authors conclusion of the debate between science and intelligent design. The 2nd to the last paragraph has this provocative statement: "The real issue is the cultural meaning of scientific conclusions, which need not be identified with the views of scientific or religious extremists.".

What conclusions drawn from science are culturally meaningful?

Here's the full editorial.

Last update: October 1, 2005 at 7:00 PM Editorial: Science, religion/The discussion needs recasting October 2, 2005 ED1002A The debate over whether to teach intelligent design in science classrooms is, ultimately, discouraging and sad. It demeans both scientific inquiry and religion. There are important issues to be discussed at the junction of the two, but Intelligent Design isn't one of them, and science classrooms are the wrong venue. From a public policy perspective, the danger of the Intelligent Design movement is its potential for undermining the integrity of scientific inquiry and science education, both central to modern life and the advancement of the human species. Science is a method and a process; integral to it is testing and refinement. Hypotheses are proposed, and other scientists are invited to test them, to shoot at them and see if they stand up. If repeated testing and refinement validate a hypothesis, it becomes a theory, an exalted status in science. Evolution is one of these, along with gravity, as Ken Keller observes in his essay on the cover of today's Op Ex. Intelligent Design isn't science, and it isn't remotely an alternative to the theory of evolution, which grows stronger every day as new scientific techniques are applied to testing its validity. Intelligent Design is a belief, and a marginal one at that, held principally by adherents to an intolerant religious literalism. Most adherents to most of the world's great religions have no problem with the methods of scientific inquiry or with the empirical conclusions that result from it. John Brooke, an English science historian, tells, for example, of Charles Kingsley, an Anglican priest and amateur scientist who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin. For Kingsley, Brooke says, "a deity who could make all things make themselves was far wiser than one who simply made all things." Botanist Asa Gray, Brooke writes, believed that "Darwin had illuminated the classic problem of theology: the problem of pain. If competition and struggle were preconditions of the very possibility of evolutionary change, then pain and suffering were the price levied for the production of beings who could reflect on their origins." It is also true, Brooke points out, that the great scientific intellects mostly belonged to spiritual men: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Pasteur and Einstein all held religious beliefs, albeit quirky and idiosyncratic. Science \-\- including evolutionary science \-\- and scientists can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator; that's beyond their ken. It is, Brooke writes, wrong to assume that "once a naturalistic account has been given for the origins and development of the universe the gods can all be buried." Similarly, those with strong religious views can't be allowed to use the levers of political power \-\- whether in a school board, a legislature or Congress \-\- to undermine science. That's what the current trial in Dover, Pa., is about: whether Intelligent Design has a place in a science classroom. It doesn't. The important conversation about science and religion, one that should take place away from the science classrooms and labs, concerns the cultural and religious implications of science. "Debates so often construed in terms of an essential 'conflict between religion and science' usually turn out to be something else \-\- and far more interesting," Brooke writes. "The real issue is the cultural meaning of scientific conclusions, which need not be identified with the views of scientific or religious extremists." That's the discussion truly worth having. It would be far more elevating \-\- for both religion and science \-\- than the current simplistic contretemps over Intelligent Design. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5644916.html

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (20)

wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Althea,

I believe that there is a specific purpose for this universe. I believe that it would not be very intelligent to believe otherwise considering the magnitude, detail, and potential of it all. Now perhaps many here would agree that this universe is a creation and if a creation then there must be a Creator.
I am curious to see what others believe concerning how it all got here in the beginning. I don't think that such a poll if done courteously would have to be out of bounds.

Already the posted subject is inheirently "multi-cultural".
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think the problem is that the 'Intelligent Design' movement isn't designed to persuade those of us who've had a decent or proper scientific education, but to persuade those who have NOT.

& sadly, that number grows daily.I think the last generation of students who received quality public education equally is aproaching middle age.The dismantling of our public school systems has been well underway for a few decades now.College tuitions keep going up & financial aid has been slashed - w/ more slashing to come.No more free education.The desire seems to be for an aristocracy here in the USA - not a meritocracy.

Vocabularies are shrinking - which is, I think, to the advantage of the bamboozlers - who use language w/ excruciating precision, & rely on the ignorance of their 'base' to succeed.

Wayne - I've always tended toward Darrow's idea of the creation story from the Bible (altho I was unaware of it for many years) - who are we to decide how long a day is to the Almighty?

FWIW

Here is a link that might be useful: Scopes Trial
Related Discussions
Extreme pruning for backyard orchard culture - does it work?
Q
Comments (44)
Here is a bit of an update on my on highly pruned trees. I have 4 sweeet cherries, all pruned to less than 7 ft tall, all started as whips 4 or 5 years ago. Last year they bloomed but no fruit due to a late frost. Here are photos with 2 of those trees now, one is blooming well and the other is almost open. The others are either blooming or almost blooming. I also have several apples, a pear, and figs, which have been pruned with a similar philosophy, but it's too early to post photos from this year's flowers or fruits. The apples and pear look like they'll also have lots of flowers. Maybe it does work. We'll see. Since there are lots of flowers now, maybe there will be lots of cherries this summer. There is still some room for more growth, I can let them get to 7 or 8 foot without a problem, but plan to continue the somewhat drastic summer pruning as we have done so far. These were from a big box store and it did not state what rootstock, other than 'semi dwarf'. I did not use to multi-trees per hole method because I was not aware of it at the time, but otherwise am doing the summer pruning as described for backyard orchard culture.
...See More
Is Organic Culture Often Missing Something?
Q
Comments (24)
"The beginning of the food chain? carbon, hydrogen and oxygen." The food chain essential starts with the organisms with ability to convert the suns energy into forms utilized by the chain to follow. It is the carbohydrates and starches that lay the foundation. Only then can we draw upon the spectrum of nutrients essential to various species; the dietary menu so to speak. I'll also give mention to von Liebig's law of minimum. This gives credence to the essential role played by the trace elements. Albrecht's greatest realization was the ratio relationship that exists between nutrients. The Mulder's chart of nutrient interactions lends emphasis to antagonism and stimulation of need. To complicate the nutrient balancing act we gardeners lean towards the diverse mixed garden; finding a happy medium suited to all our plantings. On a farm, typical plantings are in mono-crop over acres so fields may have focused fertility plan. With so much written on the topic it is a challenge to marry all the information. Each seems to have its own process and interpretation. Few seem to say the same thing, even in different words. The best laid nutrient management plan stills requires understanding of the soil type, management actions, climate and weather influences, rainfall data and the nature of amendments. One changeable influence can alter the best laid plan; ie, drought or heavy rain. I have yet to see all of the essential information in one reference; it a search for all the pieces. The organic options still seem the most credible. Feeding the soil and application of raw minerals provides for a healthy soil food web and availability of nutrients to enable natural nutrient cycles. That is not to forget that plants play a role in nutrient uptake; the demand and ability to influence availability in the root zone. The soil test and recommendations still remain key to nutrient management. The experience of each year's production and subsequent testing reports aid in our efficient management plans. A link to the Mulder chart below: Here is a link that might be useful: Plant Nutrient Interactions
...See More
Do these terms have a scientific meaning??
Q
Comments (19)
Are you looking for definitions such as these? bog TRS Logo * A commonly used term in Scotland and Ireland for a stretch waterlogged, spongy ground, chiefly composed of decaying vegetable matter, especially of rushes, cotton grass, and sphagnum moss.(Source: WHIT) (Source: European Environment Agency (EEA), European Topic Centre on Catalogue of Data Sources (ETC/CDS): General Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus Term Detail) * A type of wetland that accumulates appreciable peat deposits. Bogs depend primarily on precipitation for their water source, and are usually acidic and rich in plant residue with a conspicuous mat of living green moss. (Source: Office of Communications, Education, and Media Relations: Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms (Revised December 1997) Term Detail) * Found almost exclusively in glaciated depressions, soils are saturated highly acidic, have low nutrient levels, and are saturated throughout the growing season. Vegetation consists of a variety of emergents, carnivorous plants such as sundew and pitcher plants, and shrubs or small trees occurring on consolidated peat. Bogs usually have an area of open water called the "eye." (Source: EPA/Great Lakes National Program Office: Natural Landscaping for Public Officials: Glossary Term Detail) These come from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Terminology reference system. I can only use the TRS via a very tedious and circuitous route. (A site called Wordwizard.org has a link to a Onlook Dictionary which has a link to TRS.) I have not yet found a way to get into TRS and go directily to the definition.
...See More
Do you think organic and cultural practices would affect it much
Q
Comments (11)
First, when someone does a study that basically says greenspaces are bad regarding global warming effects, I think it merits discussion on internet boards frequented by people who by and large have and enjoy lawns. Global warming is one of those topics that is almost entirely "political". So, here lawn talk and politics have to go hand in hand. Each poster can join in or stay out at their election. However, staying out of the political debate in this context may very well mean your lawn gets laws and regulations passed that affect it (and maybe even outlaw it) without your voice being heard. Second, I find it a bit pompous, frankly, for you to act like you have concrete answers (in the negative) to the very question I asked if perhaps we needed additional scientific studies to tie down pro or con. The study establishes that "greenspaces" i.e. as it relates to this forum, lawns have some impact on global warming. Similarly, knowledgeable folks here would likely agree organics, as practiced by some, can and usually does have significantly lower inputs of just the kind of ingredients the study author used to determine impact of greeenspaces on global warming. Fertilizer and irrigation. You site neither study nor theory/application to support your position. In short, all you seem to be adding to the discussion is self important unsupported opinion. So, I ask again, if the author of this study had studied the soil and practices involved in organic lawn maintenance, how likely is it that the greenspace would have been determined to be bad as opposed to good for global warming? Add what seems to me to be a key factor not accounted for in the study, cooling efffect of greenspace, especially in urban environments, and I hope and would somewhat expect (just applying background info) that the results might be just the opposite of those found in the study in question. And, fwiw, I think organic practices, including cultural practices, can very much affect the net effect on the carbon cycle, air gasses and air temps. By a lot, a little? I don't know. Some real scientific review and data would be nice before govt starts telling lawn owners what they have to do, no?
...See More
wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Carol,
I agree that God's days might be different than ours. After all the Bible is an Eastern book and many Hebrew terms and nuances are not always understood well.

I do believe that the opening sentence of the Bible says a whole lot when properly understood...."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Notice the period...period! I believe the materials were created then....maybe billions of years ago and they may have taken a long time to settle down.

Later God woos upon the earth [it was watery and dark"cloudy>] to make it fit for habitation. He then "makes" [a different Hebrew word than create] things from His original creation...the material was already created.

To me it is sad that such an important question as to where and why we came from and where we go have to be so at odds....and so so "scientific".
paalexan
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Religion's just never made any sense to me. The idea of a god doesn't make any sense to me because I have no idea what kind of attributes it might have--what it might look like, think, feel, be capable of, etc. So... if I said I believed in a god, it'd be the same as me saying, "I believe in something, but I don't know what." Likewise, for me to say that god created the universe would be exactly the same as saying that I don't know how the universe got here. That happens to be perfectly true--I don't know how the universe got here. But sticking the word "god" in there just makes the same statement vague and confusing.

The really interesting aspect of the interface between science & religion, to me, is what the idea of evolution can tell us about why we have religions, what purpose they serve, etc. David Sloan Wilson's "Darwin's Cathedral" explores this topic in some depth. Though I disagree with him on many points, thinking about religions as a means of cultural evolution in groups of humans has a lot of explanatory power. For instance, it explains one of the things I've always found very troubling about organized religions--they tend to advocate moral behavior towards other members of the religion at the same time as advocating immoral behavior towards atheists & members of other religions. But, if moral behavior within the religion increases the productivity & power of the members of the religion by forming them into a well-organized, efficient group acting for common good, then this part of typical religious morality can be explained evolutionarily as an adaptation that allows religions to spread & be successful. Likewise, if immoral behavior against members of other religions can lead to replacement of the other religion through killing, marginalizing, or reducing the power of its members, then this also can be explained evolutionarily.
Prohibition of contraceptives, abortion, etc., likewise appear to be adaptive traits of religions--a religion's success is the result of conversion of outsiders & of the reproductive success of its own members, so a religion that didn't do its best to encourage its members to reproduce wouldn't last as long as a competitor that did.

Patrick Alexander
althea_gw
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
O.K. so far no one has been able to come up with anything in regards to cultural value of science. Honestly, neither could I, which is why I asked. There must be something.

Wayne, in response to your question, I can only say that I don't share your belief, and will fall back on my usual answer -- it's none of my business.

Carol, am I right in understanding you post to mean that knowledge/education is being manipulated for the benefit of a few?

Patrick, the origin of morality is a very interesting question. I recently read an excellent essay by Noam Chomsky which addressed that question. I'll try to find it and post it.

Today my local paper has this article which I thought was germane to this discussion and follows Patrick's inquiry. The paper requires registration, so I'll clip a bunch and then post a link.
"And if those researchers at the university have their way, this could be one of the last days of wild ricing ever, maybe the last of wild rice as we know it." A half\-century\-old clash of spirituality and science between Minnesota Indian tribes that consider wild rice sacred and University of Minnesota scientists who continue to study its genetic make\-up is again boiling over. This difference of culture and world view has evolved into a battle of ethics and, the tribes fear, the potential loss of Minnesota's state grain through cross\-pollination with a genetically engineered species. When Ronald Phillips, director of the Center for Microbial and Plant Genomics on the university's St. Paul campus, and his staff published a mapping of the wild rice genome five years ago, there were rumblings at White Earth and other northern reservations that the blueprint for developing genetically enhanced wild rice had been set. As research at the university continues, fear on the reservations escalates. "We're not scientific Frankensteins," said Charles Muscoplat, dean of the university's College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences. "Ron Phillips has said for years he would not create a genetically engineered wild rice. We know wild rice, to the Indians, is sacred, given to them by the Creator, that it's central to their traditional rituals, feasts and ceremonies. "As a gift from the Creator, it's perfect. They don't question that. But Western science is based on questioning. We have a completely different world view. "If a faculty member can get the money to do research, we do it." Income, land deals Money cannot buy culture and tradition, but it, too, plays a pivotal role in the tribes' anxiety about the university's research. \[snip\] Said LaDuke: "Aside from wild rice being sacred to the Ojibwe people, and aside from the university's obligation to serve all people in Minnesota, including the tribes, what sense does it make to spend so much time and money on wild rice? People want it and are willing to buy it because they like it the way it is." A prior mistake Arguments over wild rice in Minnesota began in the early 1950s, when farmers in northeastern Minnesota asked university researchers if there was a way to domesticate wild rice, so that it could be cultivated as a new crop, Muscoplat said. "Our mistake, back then, was our failure to include Native American groups in those discussions," he said. By 1967, Minnesota farmers were cultivating wild rice in paddies. Over the past five years, Minnesota has produced between 4.3 and 6.2 million pounds of processed cultivated wild rice (often called paddy rice), second only to California, which produced 8.8 to 18 million pounds, Muscoplat said. "We're trying to look at this fair\-mindedly, that efficiency and abundance is a good thing," said Craig Hassel, a nutritionist in the university's department of Food, Science and Nutrition. "It's easy to assume scientific perspectives are superior. But that world view is not shared on the reservation."
My understanding of this debate is that western scientific culture values economic opportunity above all else. There seems to be no guiding principles other than potential income generating power of scientific inquiry. What do you think?

Here is a link that might be useful: startribune
ericwi
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
With regard to research into the genetics and cultivation of wild rice, different players have different motives. A university graduate student wants to be successful, get noticed, and get published. The research is most worthwhile if it results in some sort of fundamental understanding, and can be used as a foundation for future research in another area.

If the research makes it possible to grow a crop with less land, less labor, less water, less fuel, or less chemical inputs, then the farmers and people who supply farmers will take notice. Economic interest would be the overriding issue.

There is a niche market for traditional wild rice, grown, harvested, and processed in the traditional manner. But the market is changed when cultivated wild rice is sold for a lower price. The conflict has existed for several decades, and it precedes the more recent developments in genetic engineering.

The market for wild rice reminds me of the market for swiss cheese. How can cheese that comes from Wisconsin, made with milk from Wisconsin, be called "Swiss cheese?" It may look the same and taste the same, and it may analyze out with the same nutrients, but if its not from Switzerland, its not Swiss cheese. One could argue that the label helps the consumer understand what the product is, raises consumer confidence in the product, and helps generate a sale. But the dairy farmers and cheesemakers located in Switzerland do not benefit, and would likely object, if anyone would listen.
vgkg Z-7 Va
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"Intelligent Design" might just back fire as it could lead to other conclusions and not just a "god". The universe has been here for ~13.8 Billion years (at last estimates) and the Earth/Sun system has been here for only the last 4.5 Billion years. Plenty of time for "others" to evolve, become intelligent, and spread their seed. If there is a Supreme Being that designed US then there wasn't too much intelligence behind the obviously multi-flawed design. Perhaps the creator saw the inherent problems and just moved on to experiment elsewhere. There's plenty of real estate to develope out there, infinite in all directions.
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Hi Althea - sorry it's taken me so long to get back on this topic - it's a very deep & broad subject & requires deep & broad thought & I'm not really sure about answers - plus I'm inherently lazy ((*g*))

But in answer to your 2nd query 1st(see how good I am @ procrastinating?), I don't think ed./knowledge is especialy being manipulated, as much as being systematically undermined by those 'powers' which oppose ANY socially beneficial gov't programs.The 'dumbing down' of citizenry is a lucky/useful consequence/result.

I also think the whole debate of religion vs. science is a canard - a 'wedge' issue - a false dilemma.IOW, phony baloney = P

As your article points out, a number of great scientific thinkers were/are deeply spiritual persons.& it's no secret that it serves a certain agenda right now in the USA to divide people over such issues.

I'm still wondering how to define the term 'cultural meaning' & am curious what kind of answer(s) you may've come up w/ to your own question?

In reading Vgkg's above post, I think I see a glimmer of an example.....
kingturtle
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I agree with the article and other posters about how ID is a wedge issue to divide people and noting the spiritual beliefs of many scientists. I'm reminded that the campaign to establish a particular brand of religion on our country also confuses and obscures the spritual deist beliefs of many of our founding fathers who resisted a state religion.

On the question of cultural meaning of scientific conclusions, I'm still abit confused. I think possibly in a broad context, science is not done in a vacuum and all scientific conclusions have cultural meaning.
mountain_curmudgeon
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
It is little surprise to me that many if not most reputable scientists refuse to lend credence to elevating religious myth to the status of science by debating Creationists by any name.
kingturtle
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think it's a mistake to let the ID folks challenge to science teaching standards go unanswered. Their misrepresentation of scientific theory and plea for inclusion in the name of freedom of speech is winning many uncritical people who don't understand the difference between science and faith. This is just more muddling of science by the right that we've seen over and over in recent years in policy and cultural issues. It threatens to weaken our country's once strong foundation in science and technology and lowers policy debate to political propaganda.
mountain_curmudgeon
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think the issue is more the forum of the debate and who rules on the merits of the argument. If Creationists want to advance a myth as science, the proper forum isn't in front of a school board where non-scientists are expected to rule on the scientific merits of the argument. When this happens, the results are culturally based conclusions, not scientifically based findings.
althea_gw
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Sorry for leaving you questions unanswered for so long. I googled "John Brooke" for hints of what he might be getting at but came up with only variations of the statement quoted above. At this point, I'm not even sure what "cultural meaning" means.

So, we might as well discuss ID. This article in today's NYTimes about the Board's redefinition of "Science" is alarming. It takes care of the problem with muddling the distinction of science and faith, making them one in the same. What if the U.S. Supreme Court is left to decide this issue? Yikes!
Philosophers Notwithstanding, Kansas School Board Redefines Science By DENNIS OVERBYE Published: November 15, 2005 Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science. In the early 1990's, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed "the end of objectivity." The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth. The right defended the traditional notion of science back then. Now it is the right that is trying to change it. On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself. The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science. The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin's opponents, said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations."
Here is a link that might be useful: nytimes
kingturtle
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Unbelievable! A bunch of school board bureacrats taking it upon themselves to define science. Ludicrous! The Board needs to confine itself to teaching "what is" not recodifying science and religion. Hopefully there will be a major backlash and these people will be jerked back to monitoring school guard crossing and bus routes or whatever it is they do.
marshallz10
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I too am appalled and angry at the Kansas school board's ill-informed (if not willful) disregard for science.
vgkg Z-7 Va
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Political pressure, same result as the recent FDA disapproval of the morning after pill. Sound science hardly makes a sound over the loud rhetoric.
wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I see political pressure against many things....including FDA pressure against supplemental nutrients. There is a bias of economics to protect the big vested interests.

On topic...I do believe that this universe was desined and created and is planned and watched over by The Great Scientist.
marshallz10
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
So let's objectively study science and not interpose faith between observation and conclusion. God is unknowable but science can still contribute to our understanding and to our wise use and conservation of God's creations.

How's that?
kingturtle
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Sounds good to me, Marshall. That's worked for many years. I don't see why we must foresake science to know God or vice versa.

I'm reminded that many great scientists including several important evolutionists were very religious and believed that while God was a matter of faith, undertaking rational science was entirely consistent with understanding evolution as the instrument God used to create the world.
wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
18 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
While on the particular thoughts mentioned above.....I believe in a creation [in the beginning] and some planned evolvement [Explosions, cohesing, heating, cooling, expanding, etc.] and then some "making". The Hebrew words of creation and made are two different verbs and the nuance should not be lost.

It's good to see the word God mentioned by the two gentlemen above. I believe when talking about SOE that is wise to acknowledge the obvious.

Cultural Meaning of Scientific Conclusions

Comments (20)

wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana

carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b

Related Discussions

wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana

paalexan

althea_gw
Original Author

ericwi

vgkg Z-7 Va

carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b

kingturtle

mountain_curmudgeon

kingturtle

mountain_curmudgeon

althea_gw
Original Author

kingturtle

marshallz10

vgkg Z-7 Va

wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana

marshallz10

kingturtle

wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Cultural Meaning of Scientific Conclusions

Comments (20)

Related Discussions

althea_gwOriginal Author

althea_gwOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

althea_gw
Original Author

althea_gw
Original Author