Is God a myth? Or is Evolution simply science fiction?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 26 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 1, 2012 11:23:45 AM PDT
I keep going back and forth between these two questions. I've done a lot of research for my latest series, much of which involved equal parts Bible and scientific theory. The problem I'm finding is that neither one is conclusive. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Nancy Madore
Author, THE HIDDEN ONES

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 6:37:29 AM PST
Vicky says:
I bet neither one will be conclusive anytime soon. Some people accept the Bible as truth and most of these people always will. Some people accepts science as truth and most always will. Other integrate the two and try to find a happy balance. I think the big difference is that God can never be proven beyond ones beliefs. But evolution has evidence that proves it might be true.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 5:11:59 AM PST
I recently took a poll on this with young mothers, to see how the next generation will be influenced. There was a surprisingly low tolerance for the God theory. We ended up with 51% of mothers who feel adamantly about evolution being the only option. Only 17% believe in God. 30% would like to see their children exposed to both, and let them decide for themselves. Most interesting, the 51% who believe in evolution were extremely dogmatic, almost (dare I say) religious in their fervor about this. They were rude and condescending to posters who felt differently from them. As evolution (as our origin, not as seen in our existing genetics) is yet to be proven, I was a little surprised. I couldn't help wondering, is science the new religion? Are we just going to have 'faith' that 'accepted theories' are the final word? Doesn't the very nature of science demand that we keep the door open until (if ever) more conclusive evidence materializes?

Posted on Nov 29, 2012 9:51:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 9:57:33 AM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Nancy, there is a problem with the word "proven" in that its meaning differs between science and the more common usage. In science, nothing can ever be "proved" - everything is an hypothesis that is subject to being disproved. If it is disproved, then it is discarded or modified and tested again. If it fails to be disproved, then it is accepted but (and this is very important) it is ALWAYS subject to being disproved by new evidence. That is true for even the most strongly supported paradigms (called "theories" and "laws" in science) and is difference between science and most religions (especially Christianity). Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is one of those strongly supported paradigms. It has been tested for 150 years and has never been disproved. So, your statement that "As evolution (as our origin, not as seen in our existing genetics) is yet to be proven" ("proven" in the more common usage of the word, meaning "strongly supported by evidence") is false and ignorant. What evidence do you need to convince you that all life evolved?

The reason, I believe, that some who support (it really isn't a "belief system") evolution are dogmatic about it is a reaction to the creationists who seem to be so insecure in their own beliefs that they need to try and teach them as science. It also doesn't help that these religious zealots seem to want to paint those who don't follow their beliefs as immoral and evil. Our morals come from our genes (yes, they have evolved, too) and our upbringing and a belief in one or more deities or none is not correlated with good or evil. But I still like a couple of quotes:
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal
"The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented hell." Bertrand Russell

Posted on Nov 30, 2012 11:09:17 AM PST
Hey T. Hoffnagle,

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree. Unfortunately, you would be shocked how many people believe that because evolution is taught in school it has, in fact, been 'proven.' They get quite irate about this (I recently conducted a poll). It seems science has a clear advantage with the theory of evolution, wouldn't you say, since we are hardly likely to find anything truly conclusive about the origin of human beings.

I also agree that the more dogmatic evolution supporters are reacting to religion, however this hardly makes for good science. And I don't think the creation theory should be exclusive to religion.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 11:33:41 AM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Nancy, I think that you still have it wrong. From a more common usage of the term "prove," evolution is proved. There is no doubt in the scientific community that life evolved from simpler to more complex organisms. Period. The fact that life evolved was a known well before Charles Darwin and there were many hypotheses about how evolution happened. In fact, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin (he was a brilliant man - England's Benjamin Franklin) had his own hypothesis. Charles Darwin's contribution to science was not that evolution happened - it was that he figured out how it happened.

There is no contest between evolution and religion, so there is no "advantage." The attempt by some insecure religious people to make creation into a science (most lately in the form of "intelligent design" - a true oxymoron) makes for good media controversy and confuses many ignorant people (which, I believe, is their goal). However, it is NOT science, since it includes the supernatural.

"since we are hardly likely to find anything truly conclusive about the origin of human beings." Do a little independent research. We know a lot about the origins of our species. I'm not an anthropologist and don't have time to do the research but your statement is wrong.

"the more dogmatic evolution supporters are reacting to religion" No, we are reacting to insecure religious people trying to force their religion into our school under the name of science. Science doesn't care one way or the other about religion - it's a non-entity, as far as science is concerned.

"And I don't think the creation theory should be exclusive to religion." Science has theories, which can be tested. Religion has only stories.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 9:13:47 AM PST
SciFiNutter says:
Strange, since in my experience it is typically the religious who attack and get rude and condescending.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 9:20:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 9:42:23 AM PST
SciFiNutter says:
Well put, I have this argument with my mother all the time. Science has an "advantage" only because it is willing to admit the possibility of being wrong, and leaves EVERYTHING open to scrutiny. Unlike religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2012 8:58:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 8, 2013 7:59:55 AM PST
Your poll is flawed. Accepting science does not mean no belief in God. You seem set on it being either "I believe in Evolution" or "I believe in God" when the majority of people believe in both. Belief in the Christian God however does not equal a belief in "creationism". Despite what you and those like you seem to believe, most Christians do not believe in creationism.

Posted on Jan 7, 2013 11:52:32 AM PST
Interesting. I am merely suggesting that the creation theory be included as a scientific theory, since it cannot be dis-proven any more than evolution can. And I am speaking of evolution as the earth's and man's ORIGIN. I agree that science has been able to show that living things evolve. What I am disagreeing with is that science has provided conclusive evidence that evolution brought about the origin of earth and all living things on it. There is a very big difference. And it has absolutely nothing to do with religion...or at least, it shouldn't, in my opinion. I am hoping to keep this discussion friendly. No need to condescend or treat someone like they're stupid because they happen to have a different opinion. I'm genuinely curious about what people think.

Posted on Jan 7, 2013 8:10:52 PM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Nancy, you still don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion. Science is restricted to explanations that follow the laws of physics and that CAN be disproved. If an hypothesis or theory involves any kind of "creator" that operates outside of the laws of physics, then that hypothesis cannot be disproved and it is not science. When you write "creation theory" I assume that you mean one that involves a creator. If that is true, then it cannot be included as a scientific theory. You seem to want to divorce creationism from religion - you can't. If it involves a deity, in any way, shape or form, then it's not science. Period.

Additionally, since no one was around to observe the creation of the earth, none of the early humans left written documentation and we cannot recreate those historical occurrences, we will never have the kind of conclusive evidence that you seem to want. We are left with scientific hypotheses for them and must choose the most plausible, based on the evidence that we have.

Posted on Jan 8, 2013 12:04:31 PM PST
I disagree T. Hoffnagle. Neither you or I know for a fact that the creation theory cannot be proved at some point in time. Who knows what might happen? And does your statement apply to Evolution too? Because evolution, as the origin of man, cannot currently be disproved either. We simply do not have the information we would need to prove or disprove it. As you say, we have no idea when it was or how it occurred.

My point is...putting religion aside, I do think that BOTH evolution and creation should be included in the scientific theories we explore when searching for our origins.

Posted on Jan 9, 2013 3:14:02 PM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Nancy, you need to learn what science really is. Here are some statements of yours and my responses.

"Neither you or I know for a fact that the creation theory cannot be proved at some point in time. "
The only way for a creation story to be proved is for the deity(ies) to tell everyone on earth. Until that happens, there is no proof and there never can be.

"Because evolution, as the origin of man, cannot currently be disproved either."
Yes, it can. The evidence that we have from genetics, anatomy, physiology, morphology, paleontology and geology is enormous and shows that humans evolved from primitive apes. Our genus (Homo) appeared about 2 million years ago, our species (H. sapiens) appeared about 250,000 years ago and we left Africa about 50,000 years ago. While all of the details (such as our precise lineage back to the non-hominid apes) are not known, the fact that "We simply do not have the information we would need to prove or disprove it" does not mean that it is wrong - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But that theory can be destroyed by solid evidence showing that we came about some other way. That's how science works - no hypothesis, theory or law is so sacred that it can't be shot down by new evidence.

"BOTH evolution and creation should be included in the scientific theories "
NO!!! Read my post - the part about how science is restricted to explanations that follow the laws of physics. How does a religious creation story follow those laws? Gods, by definition, can do things that violate the laws of physics - you know, cause worldwide floods (see Gilgamesh), raise people from the dead (see Horus), return from the underworld (see Horus and Heracles), etc. Therefore, any explanation that includes a deity doing something that violates the laws of physics is NOT science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 6:18:52 AM PST
T Hoffnagle,

Again, I don't really want to turn this into a negative thing. These are just opinions and I happen to disagree with you. There are many, many instances in science where we accept something as a 'law' or a 'fact' while having no idea why it is so. You say there is proof that we evolved from apes. No, there is evidence to support that we MAY have evolved from apes. Those are two very different things. Not to mention that whether we evolved from apes or not, it still doesn't address the issue of evolution as the ORIGIN of man. There has to be something in existence already for something else to evolve from it. You might call that a scientific 'law.' As for your statement that the 'only way' for creation to be proved is for the creator to show himself...even if that were true, which it might not be (who knows what might happen?), the possibility does exist that this creator may make himself known, if this were the case.

I guess I am just trying to understand how people "know" there is a creator, and others "know" there isn't. How do you people know these things? Maybe you are right with your many insinuations about people who don't accept all the scientific theories as facts just because there's no other explanation, T...maybe I am just too stupid to understand. But I happen to think that to stop wondering...to stop questioning, is what brings about true ignorance. That's why I'll openly admit, "I don't know!"

Posted on Jan 15, 2013 6:12:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2013 6:15:45 PM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Nancy, there's an old saying: "Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone has one and they all stink." Your problem is that you think that your uneducated opinion is as valid (when discussing these subjects) as the informed opinion of someone who studies these subjects. You also don't understand the scientific meaning of the words "hypothesis," "theory" and "law" (sadly, their scientific meaning differs from the common usage) - "fact" is a word that is rarely used in science. Here are their definitions:

An hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation, that can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. An hypothesis can be disproved, but not proven to be true. If it is not disproved, then it is accepted as true until new evidence disproves it.

A scientific theory summarizes an hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. For scientists, a theory, is not just a guess - it is very well supported by evidence but it is still subject to being disproved by new evidence.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity describes how gravity works and is great for predicting what happens to a dropped object. But there are no theories for why it is that the larger the mass of an object, the greater its attractive force. Evolution is a law that explains the fossil record and the similarities among species. Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains why those species are similar and how they are related.

Also, just because YOU don't know (don't want to know?) the evidence for evolution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Do you know the physics behind how airplanes fly or the chemistry that produces plastic? If not, do you deny that they happen? Why is it that you question evolution but not the Law of Gravity or Atomic Theory? Have you ever seen an atom? Do you doubt that they exist?

We know that chimpanzees (bonobos, to be exact) are the most similar living creature to humans - genetically, morphologically, physiologically and anatomically. We also know that we are more closely related to gorillas than dogs, to dogs than lizards, to lizards than frogs, to frogs than fish, to fish than oak trees, etc. Do you doubt any of that? If you doubt evolution, you simply need to read some good science books - I suggest Richard Dawkins.

As for your question about how people "know" if there is a creator, I can say that I don't know. I see no evidence for one but I leave that possibility open. And I completely agree that we should never stop wondering and questioning - that's what science is all about (and what religion denies us - the answer is always "god" so why bother asking the question?). That the universe came about by physical laws is far more wondrous and interesting than believing that one or more deities said, "Let it be so."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 7:47:23 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2013 7:50:47 AM PST
I love the way people call you 'uneducated' when your opinion differs from theirs. I'm not uneducated T. I guess, according to you, that would make me stupid, because I have studied this one topic for more than six years. And my conclusion, in spite of your insulting remarks is this: I don't believe there is anyone out there who knows how life came about on this planet, who was involved, if anyone, and what, exactly, happened. There are lots of interesting ideas and theories. The more I learn about it, the more I realize how much there is we don't know. If this makes me stupid, then I am in good company.

I think people who insist evolution is the only possible explanation are very similar to people who insist God is the only possible explanation. Same thing. Beliefs based on emotion.

Oh, and I do understand how scientific hypothesis work...the question is whether or not to stop questioning because we feel the hypothesis is satisfactory to settle the matter. In my humble opinion, which you have insinuated stinks, this hypothesis is not satisfactory for explaining the origin of man, though I agree they have presented a very good case to support the fact that living things do evolve.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 11:17:50 PM PST
Nancy, it is your own words on the matter that prove that you are uneducated on the subject of evolution. IE your words: "And I am speaking of evolution as the earth's and man's ORIGIN" ....... This shows that you have no idea what Evolution is/means. The origins of Earth have nothing to do with Evolution.
"I do think that BOTH evolution and creation should be included in the scientific theories we explore when searching for our origins." ..............Creation is not a scientific theory, therefore it should not be included as a scientific theory.

Posted on Jan 17, 2013 6:39:56 AM PST
Thank you, Sharon, for pointing out that evolution primarily supports living things evolving, not the origin of life on earth. However, I have found that many, many people think of evolution as our origin, and as proof that there is no 'god.' If, in fact, the origins of earth have nothing to do with evolution, why is god even in the equation? Why is it a question of either or? And while I agree that creationism isn't currently a scientific theory that is taken seriously, that is my whole point. I think it should be. The concept of intelligent design has scientific merit, after all. There is a kind of precedence, in my opinion, that suggests it is more logical to assume complex structures have an inventor, rather than to assume that all the elements just came together accidentally to create a perfect scenario for that structure to come about.

I do understand and appreciate science. I really do. I simply think that we should keep questioning those things we cannot fully understand at this time. You all talk like this is a closed case. And what about all the people who still believe in God? Are they 'uneducated' too?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2013 10:00:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 17, 2013 10:01:50 AM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Nancy, I'm done. I have tried to educate you about the difference between science and religion, yet you refuse to listen and keep making uneducated and downright ignorant statements like:

"If, in fact, the origins of earth have nothing to do with evolution, why is god even in the equation?
Gods are not in the scientific equation because then it wouldn't be science. Gods are unpredictable.

"And while I agree that creationism isn't currently a scientific theory that is taken seriously, that is my whole point. I think it should be. The concept of intelligent design has scientific merit, after all."
That statement is oxymoronic. As Sharon and I have both pointed out, if it involves any kind of deity, then it is not science. Therefore, idiotic design is not science, so it cannot have any "scientific merit." Period.

"There is a kind of precedence, in my opinion, that suggests it is more logical to assume complex structures have an inventor, rather than to assume that all the elements just came together accidentally to create a perfect scenario for that structure to come about."
Later, you write, "I simply think that we should keep questioning those things we cannot fully understand at this time."
Idiotic design says that some things are too complex to have evolved and have to have had a creator. This "watchmaker argument" fails because of the infinite question of "who created the creator?" Also, under that argument, at some point, we just default to "goddidit." How does that allow us to "keep questioning those things we cannot fully understand at this time?" That's why scientists disregard idiotic design - we don't ever stop questioning.

"I do understand and appreciate science."
No, you don't understand it and you obviously don't want to. Science (from wikipedia): "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." In order to "form testable explanations" (hypotheses) and make "predictions", you have to follow the laws of physics - no one can predict when a deity may decide to act. Therefore, as I have said repeatedly, anything that involves a deity (such as idiotic design) is not science.

You are correct that "knows how life came about on this planet" or "what, exactly, happened" and that "there are lots of interesting ideas and theories." But none of those scientific theories involve a deity. In fact, cosmologists (see Lawrence Krauss' book `A Universe from Nothing') believe that they can show (mathematically) how our universe could have arisen from nothing and without any supernatural help. It's out of my field, so I won't explain any further, as I don't understand it (I haven't read his book yet) but you might want to check it out.

Lastly, why do you keep saying "God?" You do realize that, if a deity exists, there is every reason to believe that there are many of them, don't you? You are stuck in your Judeo-Christian-Muslim monotheistic view. It is easy to see your bias.

Sharon is right - your own words demonstrate that you are uneducated on this topic. I didn't call you uneducated because your opinion differs from mine. I called you ignorant and uneducated because you don't know the facts about the subject. And, what's worse, is that it is not only ignorant but it is willful ignorance because you have been told (repeatedly) otherwise. In my view, willful ignorance is the worst kind. You are the equivalent of a "flat earther" - no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. And that is why I am done discussing this with you. Go ahead and blast me - you are only spouting uneducated opinions and remember what they say about opinions....

Posted on Jan 17, 2013 11:00:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 17, 2013 11:00:59 AM PST
It is sad that you can't separate the concept of intelligent design from religion. I am not religious, so I don't see how it can be 'easy to see my bias' when there isn't one. I think you have the bias...you clearly don't know how this world came about any more than I do, yet you can defend what you don't know with such fervor. It's ridiculous. I'm arguing that we don't know so all options should remain open, and you're getting angry with that argument!

Try reading this from a site on intelligent design. It might help YOU understand science a little better:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-you-understand-nothing-else-about.html#comment-form

Posted on Jan 17, 2013 12:38:23 PM PST
Here's another really good link with a video that is very informative.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/

Posted on Jan 18, 2013 4:06:57 AM PST
as a hindu, i think that the earth evolved out of the eternal brahman...that the trinity of brahma, the creator, vishnu, the preserver and shiva, the destroyer was responsible for the earth to come into existence...as we all know, of course, that the earth is a flat landmass held on the trunks of three divine elephants, balanced on the tortoise, which is in fact, an avatar of vishnu, out of his ten avatars, which included him being, variously, a fish, a boar and a half-man/half-beast

however, my muslim neighbour has a different opinion...as a hindu, i find it blasphemous to utter it here...and worse still, my jain neighbour and his budhhist neighbour, and our jewish friend, all think i am wrong...i simply say this one thing: since it cannot be disproven, the hindu history of creation must be included as an alternative to evolution...and not the christian or muslim or jain or budhhist or jewish....i take strong objection to you people debating as if there are only two theories...over one billion people cannot be wrong...and yes, remember, if you anger shiva, he shall open his third eye and smite you in an instant...so beware all

Posted on Jan 18, 2013 7:45:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 18, 2013 8:01:02 AM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Ok, one more post and then I'm gone. Nancy, you really and truly are ignorant on this subject, despite you self-proclaimed "more than six years" of "study" of this topic. But, given the two links that you provided, I know why you are still ignorant about science and evolution. Here's a site for you to start some real research regarding evolutionary science:

http://www.talkorigins.org

You wrote, "It is sad that you can't separate the concept of intelligent design from religion." No, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS RELIGION. The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial demonstrated that conclusively. In his decision, Judge John E. Jones III (a Republican and Lutheran), wrote:

"An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism."

"We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

"our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

"we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

This Republican judge was scathing in his slamming of ID and the Dover School District for trying to call ID science and push it on its students. He wrote, " The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

That "factual backdrop" was, "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."

Further, you wrote, "you clearly don't know how this world came about any more than I do, yet you can defend what you don't know with such fervor."
No, I am defending science. I'm a biologist, not a cosmologist. And I fully admit that I don't know for sure how the "world came about." I have already admitted that deities may have been involved. But, as I have said repeatedly, including deities in an explanation is not science. I'm open to any other scientific hypotheses for the creation of the universe but they cannot involve the supernatural. Do you have any alternative hypotheses? I'm also open to the possibility that there are deities out there - I just need evidence that cannot be explained by natural phenomena. Do you have that evidence?

Nancy, you are like the media these days - trying to show controversy where there is none and, in the process, providing a tremendous disservice to the public.

Posted on Jan 18, 2013 8:07:34 AM PST
T. Hoffnagle says:
Kedar, it seems to me that your post had a hint of sarcasm. If I am correct, I appreciate it.

As you well know there are thousands of religious creation stories - none any less accurate than any other. In fact, some are really cool stories! I suspect that your sarcasm is pointed at the fact that it is almost only the Christians who push their creation story as science (Muslims are starting to get into the act, though). My view is to keep religion and science separate. I think that all kids should have a solid background in science and how science really works. All kids should also take a comparative religion class to provide them with a bigger picture of the world and its cultures. We do both science and religion a disservice when we mix them.

Posted on Jan 18, 2013 9:48:55 AM PST
I give up. I wanted a friendly discussion where people could safely post their opinions without being mocked and called names. Clearly you didn't read the first post or watch the video because you didn't even address the issues those two links brought up. Your one-way arguments are way too emotional to address.

I have no affiliation with any religion. I think religion is nothing more than politics for controlling people. And yes, I think that the possibility exists that there was some kind of intelligent design involved in our getting here. I also think the possibility exists that we did evolve from a single cell. But it just seems a little more logical that there was some help. That's all I'm saying. And yes, I have studied it. And yes, if you watch the video, you'll see scientists who believe what YOU believe admitting what I just said here.

If there is some creature out there, alien or supernatural, that contributed to our existence in some way, I don't think it has an agenda. I think PEOPLE have the agenda.

I'm glad you're so sure about every detail of how we got here. I'm going to keep studying it. I'm sorry if that pisses you off.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  6
Total posts:  26
Initial post:  Nov 1, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 18, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Hidden Ones (Legacy of the Watchers Book 1)
The Hidden Ones (Legacy of the Watchers Book 1) by Nancy Madore
4.1 out of 5 stars   (37)