Intelligent Design?

I was recently doing some training for the EPA at their beautiful campus at Research Triangle Park. During a break, I sat on one of the outdoor benches and thought about a conversation I'd had with a good friend recently regarding intelligent design.

I imagined an alien who landed on earth and came upon me sitting on the bench. The bench was done is such a way that it was nicely integrated with the lawn on which it sat. My new alien friend approaches...

"That's a wonderful example of evolution--that bench you're sitting on," he says.

"Huh? This isn't a work of nature. This was designed and built by someone--a human, I think."

"That's silly. Of course, it's a product of evolution: look at the organic nature of the thing. It probably began started out as a piece of wood and evolved into its present state."

"Look, I'm from around here and I can assure you that this was built by a human. It was designed and built; it didn't evolve."

"Well, that's your opinion: you have your opinion and I have mine. Since it probably took a very long time to evolve, we probably won't be around to see another one make it to this point, so it will have to remain an unsettled question. At least, I hope you'll be open enough to teach both opinons in your schools."

I was stymied by his reasoning, but unsure how to proceed. And then, I had a little idea. "Say, look under the bench. If it was designed and built, as I assert, there should be some sign. I imagine there should somewhere be the name of the firm who produced it."

The alien slid under the bench and for some time remained silent. "Hmm...," he said. "It says 'Outdoor Crafts, Inc.' on something that looks like a plaque."

"Well, that settles it," I said. "It was indeed designed and built."

"Not at all. I think it's clear that this 'plaque' evolved as well."

"What?? That's absurd. The plaque indicates the firm that made it."

"Well, you have your opinion and I have mine."

I wasn't ready to give up yet. "See if there are some screws or bolts that fasten the bench to its stand. That's a common practice among human builders."

The alien looked. "Indeed, there are. Nature never ceases to amaze me with her ingenuity."

"Look, there's another bench over there. I think if you'll measure them, you'll see they're exactly the same in every detail."

The alien surveyed the other bench and returned with his findings. "You're right: they are exactly the same. Clearly, this was a successful branch of evolution, leading to its duplication."

"You're just impossible," I suggested.

"Not at all," he rejoined. "It's just that you have your opinion and I have mine. I suppose it's really a matter of faith: yours in this 'design and creation' theory; me in my evolution theory. Neither of us have definite proof. And what people are sure of today, they often recant tomorrow. The best approach is to keep an open mind. Say, I'd love to continue this fascinating discussion, but I'm being beeped by the mother ship. I'm afraid it's off to the meteor, Blastoid 57 for me." And with that, he was gone.

It's a silly story, I know, but maybe an instructive one. The alien was right: neither of us had definitive proof, but he was very wrong, I assert, in his conclusion that both "theories" were equally valid.

It's simply not enough for a theory to explain something. One can always conjure a theory to explain past events. One of the necessary requirements for a good scientific theory is that it produce predictions that can be tested: the more correct predictions it produces, the higher our confidence in the theory.

My theory produced three testable predictions, all of which were proven true. The alien's theory produced none. And that, friends, is where intelligent design has so utterly failed. Evolution has made consistent predicitions, many of which have proven true and have led to major breakthroughs in our understanding of biology and cosmology, among many other sciences. Intelligent design, though, has failed to provide any predictions that might be tested. Instead, its advocates content themselves with pointing out the weaknesses and incompleteness in evolution.

But NOT x does not mean y. Weaknesses in evolution do not bolster intelligent design. Such reasoning commits the logical fallacy of the False Dilemna. Or for my techie friends, it is, as one expert calls it, "the illegitimate use of the 'or' operator".

I personally find it sad that so many Christians fall prey to the nonscientific appeals of intelligent design. As a Christian myself, I think that the intelligent design argument is an attempt to prop up God. As my intelligent design friend told me, "If there is no first Adam, what need do we have of a second Adam?"

But if our faith is based on such a shabby foundation, where we deliberately distort truth, is it really faith in God -- or faith in our own understanding? If (as I think) it's the latter, it's really a very old-fashioned idea known as idolatry, in which something other than God holds ultimate sway. What the intelligent design folks seem to think is that if God is responsible for evolution, then he's not much of a God at all. And they're very anxious that others agree, for the more people who endorse their fantasy, the less likely that they may have to admit to themselves that God may be something very different than what we imagine.

To the non-Christian, this may seem a matter of non-importance, but to us Christians, it should be supremely important. How nature works should not be a matter of faith, but of science. Of course, science is often wrong (at any one point in history) but it has a marvelous, self-correcting aspect about it. We sinners, on the other hand, can marshall even God into the service of our arrogance.

Comments

[Jeff Peters]

I think the importance of the issue depends on the Christian's view of original sin. The biblical creation story provides an explanation for our need of a Savior (the "second Adam", as your intelligent design friend put it). If taken as an allegory, the conclusion may be that, even though there weren't particular individuals "Adam" and "Eve" (as would seem to be required by evolutionary theory), we still know ourselves to have an intrinsic sin nature. This is not mitigated if, as some Christians believe, evolution was God's "creative process". Our sin nature, and consequent need for the redemption provided by Christ, remains.

However, many evolutionists believe that their theory disproves the Genesis narrative, and therefore refutes the existence of God and the possibility of the truth of Christianity. This is the primary point around which the "evolution vs. creation" battle has been waged. Unfortunately, to pack the debate into two such neat little bundles does poor service to everyone.

Modern science was founded in the belief that man could better understand God by examining His creation. The scientific method was built on the premise that God is a God of order, and so His creation would behave and exist in an orderly fashion, and repeatable experimentation could reveal truth about it. Science and Christianity mutually exclusive? Bullhockey.

[Clark Valberg]

I agree that it’s not a matter of science vs. some magical all-mighty God. Consider that science is nothing more than a comfortable human-constructed abstraction that allows us to manage the raw physical world... Obviously if there is a God he would have known that we humans would seek patterns and create a unified model of our physical reality for the purpose of understanding and engaging it. So it just doesn’t make sense to look at God and Science as apposing realities.

[Sean Corfield]

I remember years ago trying to discuss this topic with a creationist. We worked logically through much of his thinking until we go to a certain point where he realized he was in a corner with no other option but to say "Who are we to question the ways of God?".

I think it's instructive to look back in history to non-Christian groups who attributed pretty much anything they didn't understand to one or more gods, e.g., the sun. As understanding of nature increased, the mysteries became fewer and the number of gods became fewer until we are left with the three monotheist "book" religions and a handful of others that are essentially monotheist (I'm talking about mainstream religions).

What will happen if those last few mysteries are ever answered unequivocally? Or will there always be religious hold-outs who deny those answers?

It's an interesting study in human psychology, watching how faith and knowledge interplay...

[Jeff Peters]

Interesting concept, Sean. I'm not sure that progression of natural knowledge vs. number-of-deities is supportable from an historical perspective, though. Certainly the "book religions" have shared timeframes with Egyptian, Greek, and Roman polytheistic traditions, and the interplay between the Hebrews and Egyptians in particular reveals little to support the idea that more natural knowledge equals belief in fewer gods (and presumably the ultimate knowledge that there is no god).

Now as to whether more natural knowledge tends to cause the abandonment of false gods and faith systems over time: that's another question altogether, for which I suspect we will not have an answer until the end of time itself.

[ShermB]

I agree. Intelligent Design should not be taught in school. The religious point-of-view is probably cloaked as Intelligent Design. Who, but G-d, could provide the intelligence?

The real problem for evolution, however, is that almost all of the things we were taught in school have been discounted. This has been documented by Berkeley Prof Jonathan Wells in his book Icons of Evolution.

Evolutionists, including college professors, have a difficult time answering the following question: What is the best evidence for evolution?

Scientists, who are also Christians, like Jonathan Safarti (see his books Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2), usually have a field day when debating evolutionists.

About four or five years ago, I saw a video of a debate that took place at Stanford Univ. between Berkeley professor Phillip E. Johnson (intelligent design) and Cornell Univ. professor William Provine (prominent evolutionary biology professor), and it was no contest. Regardless of your belief system, it was pretty easy to see that the Cornell professor was short of ammo.

Anyhow, religious things should be directed by churches, synagogues, temples, etc., not the school system. And technical boards, blogs, and web sites should focus on technical topics, certainly not religion, politics, and other divisive topics.

Also, I think it’s important to treat all peoples with kindness and respect since all of us have different backgrounds, burdens and beliefs. This rule of kindness and respect is generally taught by all religions and even adhered to by most atheists.

For Jewish and Christians traditions, this means 1] treat people like you want to be treated; 2] be slow to offend and even slower to be offended.

[halhelms]

Sean,

What troubles me about Christians and creationism is just what you touched on: God becomes the "God of the Gaps", appealed to to account for (present) mysteries. Sort of a cosmic fudge factor. As a Christian myself, I find this almost sacriligious.

I just don't understand how Christians got to the point of deciding they were qualified to judge matters of science. Haven't we learned anything from the Church's past battles with science? It's not just that we were wrong factually; we were wrong to oppose the exploration of truth, regardless of how seemingly noble the motive.

And that's what troubles me most, for I don't think the motive is noble at all. In talking with creationists/IDers, their real problem seems to come from their belief that if evolution is true, their faith will be undermined. What kind of shallow faith is that?

[halhelms]

Sherm,

IDers are delusional on this issue: they think that if they can put up a lawyer against a biologist and "win" the debate, this disproves evolution.

But debate isn't how science gets done. ("Ooh, that guy who argued that there are only four elements was good: I guess we'll have to throw out the periodic table...")

Science gets done by scientists. No, you don't have to be a professor, but you do have to subscribe to the tenets of science. Explaining something doesn't qualify as a theory. The theory has to have predictive power. And if the theory is falsifiable, so much the better.

I think too many people of faith view faith as an inferior form of knowledge, as in "Since we can't know for sure, we have to believe." That's a pretty paltry faith, IMHO.

[ShermB]

I agree. Christians should never oppose the exploration for truth. In fact, a number of scientifically-minded Christians believe that the more one searches the sciences for truth the more one is likely to come face to face with Truth Himself, Christ.

Below is a list of genuine Christian believers who were also scientists with a thirst for knowledge and truth. They either started or helped start entire fields of scientific study. The list of believers is just as long when one considers other areas of study (arts, literature, education, etc.).

My 9 year old son compiled this list as part of his religious training at church. Why? Because people within and without the church keep claiming that science and Christianity doesn’t mix. And that is not true.

Christian Scientists:

Isaac Newton (physics, mathematics, astronomy, optics)
James Clerk Maxwell (physics, mathematics, electricity, magnetism)
Samuel F B Morse (telegraph, Morse code)
Johannes Kepler (astronomy, geometry))
Louis Pasteur (chemistry, medicine, biology)
Michael Faraday (electromagnetics)
Orville and Wilbur Wright (aerospace)
Robert Boyle (chemistry, gases)
Friedrich Wilhem Herschel (astronomy)
William Thompson, aka, Lord Kevin (physics, thermodynamics)
Charles Babbage (actuarial tables, calculating machines)
Francis Bacon (scientific methodology)
Wernher von Braun (rockets)
Georges Cuvier (anatomy)
Robert V. Gentry (physics, chemistry)
George F Howe (botanist)
Carolus Linnaeus (taxonomy)
James P Joules (physics, thermodynamics)
Joseph Lister (antiseptic surgery)
George Washington Carver (agriculture, botanist)
Gregor Mendel (genetics)
Blaise Pascal (hydrostatics)
Bernhard Reimann (mathematics)
James Simpson (gynecology)
Nicholas Steno (stratigraphy)
Leonardo da Vinci (hydraulics; yes he was also a scientist)
George Stokes (fluid mechanics)
Frank L Marsh (biologist)
Joseph Henry (electric motor)
Louis Agassiz (glacial geology)

[Will Spurgeon]

I found "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder to be a nice introduction on the the blending of Christian Faith and Science. I appreciate Hal and the other commenters here being so willing to share these thoughts - I think it's essential in genuinely pursuing a relationship with God. I agree completely that we mostly create a "well-defined" idol of God, something we think we totally understand, keep in a little box and control, rather than being willing to live with the mystery and manifold that is our experience and our God.

I think most of the debates arise more from this "pursuit of the safe and definite", both in science and religion, than from the particular topic being discussed. I find it more helpful to be honest about what we know and what we don't know, and work from there.

We know that we believe in God and have now some cosmological (scientific) proof of how the Genesis story lines up with our observations of a very old universe (see "The Science of God"). We have some fossils and animal trait observations that suggest something like evolution does happen sometimes, but also a fossil record that does NOT support the "slow evolution over a long time" as described by the original evolutionary theory. In our own history, we are now taller than in the past, etc. and find that different humans have adapted to their environment, so adaptation obviously occurs.

We should not shirk if ever the discovery of such "facts" causes us to rethink our understanding of God; we are not asked to reject God or to abandon the Bible, but merely to reconsider how our God operates. For as Christians we must see, as a friend of mine put it well, that all "truth" is His truth, so it's pursuit should not scare us. Nor should we give in to the temptation to squeeze all observations into a simple doctrine, and attack those that don't fit. Newton's understanding of the world was very keen, but it couldn't account for certain observations Einstein and others faced. Does that mean that Newton was "utterly wrong"? No, he was mostly right - but we had to expand our understanding beyond Newton to deal with very large objects and/or very high speeds. How is this not exactly the same as expanding our understanding of how the nature God created operates?

And just a note, why do we need a theory of "Intelligent Design" to
"prove the existence of God" anyway? You prove His existence by allowing His love to pour thru you and into the heart of another - is there another way?

[Brian Kotek]

I'm not religious at all but it heartens me to see people like Hal who are religious and yet are still capable of being rational about things. It seems for most Christians it is all or nothing. For example, I don't see what the big deal about evolution is...if you believe in God, why couldn't God have driven/caused/started evolution? Does it really just come back to people taking the allegory of creation literally? Is it the whole "I didn't come from no damn monkey" fear that so many seem to harbor?

[halhelms]

Thank you, Will. And Amen. I've felt for a long time that much modern, pop Christianity is just rebranded materialism. Materialism is the belief that the "real stuff" of the universe is matter. These pop Christians are very big on "proving" the Bible and disproving anything that interferes with their understanding of God. How do they know their faith is true? Because the Bible tells them and they spin tortured logic to prove the Bible.

Whatever happened to the Holy Spirit? St. Paul says that our faith is a gift of God. "Oh, no" say the "Christian" Materialists. Because to many pop Christians, their faith is just intellectual conformity to a set of doctrines. And most of these CMs don't have any historical background to understand how certain doctrines came about. Ultimately, I think their faith is not in God so much as it is in their understanding. And that, to an old-fashioned guy like me, is plain idolatry.

[halhelms]

Brian,

I wish I knew. Clearly, there's a great deal of fear involved. I understand this: we all get nervous when what we think is true is fundamentally challenged. But it's the leaders of pop Christianity who, in my opinion, bear the brunt of responsibility for misleading people.

And power is also deeply involved. Take the gay issue for example. Pop Christians take the Biblical passages very seriously that they say inveigh against homosexuality. They take it so seriously, in fact, that they have to try to keep gays out of the military, as an example.

Isn't it odd, though, how these same pop Christians, miss the passages that might relate to them? Paul talks pretty strongly against gossip, for example, but I don't see any so-called Christian groups lobbying against letting gossips into the military.

IMHO, Christianity has been taken over by this lot of self-righteous, narrow-minded bigots who see the speck in their brother's eye, but not the log in their own. And so people like you, Brian, may rightly see expressions of what we used to call "sin" as characteristic of Christians.

Whatever happened to the Saducees and Pharisees that Jesus was forever castigating for their self-righteousness? Apparently, they all became pop Christians.

[ShermB]

What you say is true. For many Christians, the Creation story is all or nothing. Here’s why.

According to Christian dogma, the fall of mankind (ie, Adam and Eve disobeyed or sinned against G-d by eating the forbidden fruit), resulted in a curse over the entire creation. One consequence of this curse is death (… ashes-to-ashes, dust-to-dust).

G-d is Holy, and according to the scriptures, the penalty for sin (ie, disobedience to G-d) is death. But G-d is also merciful; therefore He provided an atonement for sinners in the person of Jesus Christ. The end result being, that sinners, now separated from G-d because of sin, can once again achieve life and perfect bliss by accepting G-d’s gift of grace, Jesus Christ.

Why does sin separate us from G-d? Because it results in death (G-d’s penalty for sin), and it is difficult to have a relationship with the dead. Most of us value our relationships. In fact, almost all of us acknowledge that the welfare of our family and friends top our list of desires. But death severs that relationship, permanently. However, G-d, as Creator of life, claims the ability to restore life, and according to the scriptures, He has given us assurance of this promise by resurrecting Jesus Christ.

If the Creation story is true (God is Creator, etc.), then Christians can rightfully hope for the consumation of all things as laid down in the scriptures. But on the other hand, if the Creation story is not true, but rather something akin to an allegory, then the hope of the Christian for eternal life and restored relationships is in vain.

To summarized, if there was no Creation by God but rather by big-bang, evolutionary processes, than there was no Fall of mankind. And if there was no Fall, then there is no need for a savior Christ. And if there is no need for Christ, then there is no resurrection. And if there is no resurrection, then there’s no restoring of our relationships with G-d, family and friends.

A lot of kids who start out as Christians, figure this out real quick. So once they hear that the big-bang and evolution are reality, they have to make a decision that is usually phrased like so: trust the Bible or trust science. Some blindly trust the Bible, others blindly trust science and leave the Christian faith, while others still find a way to merge the two views on this controversial point, but usually in a way that is unsatisfying (for example, claiming that the Creation story is an allegory). I personally find neither approach satisfying.

So the real question is not “do Christians believe they come from monkeys”, but rather the real question for all people is “is G-d the Creator of the universe and life?” And contrary to popular opinion and political correctness, the answers to these questions are not as simple as some would like most of us to believe. That’s why the intelligent design folks want shed light on the arguments and engage the public.

However, I do believe that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, the intelligent design people do carry the ball for the traditional Christian world-view. If the macro-evolution theory (from atoms, to ants, to apes to Aunt Bertha) has big holes in it - certainly the intelligent design people believe it does - then we only have a few options left. A) Panspermia, the idea that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the universe and that life on earth began when such seeds landed on earth and began propagating. This idea was supported by Francis Crick of the famed Watson and Crick (now deceased) DNA duo; or B) A) God is Creator.

[Brian Kotek]

The problem (well, one of the problems) with the "intelligent design" theory is that it's not a theory. As Hal already pointed out, it has no basis in fact and no provable hypothesis of any kind. We certainly should not teach this as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, as if it is some sort of option. One could think up alternate "theories" for anything, should we teach all of those too? Some people say storks bring babies to parents...do we start teaching that as an alternative theory simply because it is an alternative?

Even within the topic of creation there are almost limitless variations. Followers of Shinto believe that all creation derived from In and Yo, with the pure parts forming heaven and the impure parts forming the Earth. Should we also teach this as a third option? Of course this is rhetorical. But it seems to be a point that many pushing for teaching intelligent design completely miss. I feel very strongly that critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry are the only true way of gathering knowledge, and that the constant search for objective truth is the most crucial activity that humans can pursue.

[Hal Helms]

Sherm,

I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying. My ID friend said essentially the same thing: No first Adam, no need for a second Adam.

Someone once defined humility as nothing more than a proper understanding of our place in God's creation. I think that's a pretty good definition. So, of all people, Christians should be humble, understanding our limitations as humans.

One of the outgrowths of humility should be that we should not blindly trust our understanding. And the ID movement is based on just that: a particular understanding of God, real science be damned.

And we're worried because we think once the kids learn about the Big Bang and evolution, they'll reject Christianity? Is that all Christianity has to offer--some zany theories that can't stand up to peer review and can't be tested?

I don't think you believe that. I certainly don't. But the Christian Materialists do. What was said about the early Christians? "Look at how these Christians love one another". What could possibly be more attractive to people than feeling that they are genuinely loved (not simply valued as a political constituency)? If we model that, rather than rely on foolish, arrogant fairy-tales to try to prop up God, well, as I said, who wouldn't be attracted to that?

However did Christians get to the point where they feel they have to defend God? How absurd -- unless the god they're defending is one of their own making. Yeah, in that case, we need to make sure that everyone hears a carefully crafted message, because the last thing this "god" can take is the truth. In that case, we need to monitor everything that's taught in schools, we need to try to censor art and literature, we need to keep a constant eye out lest this poverty-stricken doctrine is revealed as the sham it is. And that's just what the Christian Materialists are doing. These people aren't afraid to be more than a little Machiavellian if it promotes the Christian. My argument is this: that is NOT Christianity and, damn it, I want my church back from the bastards who hijacked it.

[Steve Bryant]

Hal,

I think I agree with everything that you have said here.

I would only add this: The major problem with this debate is a failure to recognize the difference between science and fact. A theory can be scientifically correct without being factually correct.

Newton's theories were scientifically correct. Einstein came up with better theories. This doesn't mean that science was wrong to accept Newton's theories. They were powerful explanations for their time (reached by scientific method with explanatory power and possible to be disproved).

My point is basically that regardless of personal belief on facts, evolution is good science. Intelligent Design may be fine philosophy (and could be factually true), but it isn't science.

Incidentally, I am impressed with the level discussion here.

Thanks!

[Brian Kotek]

Also Hal, I want to know why you were at the EPA in RTP and you didn't call me for lunch!?!? I work right down the street. I've been betrayed. :-p

[Hal Helms]

Very good points, Steve. The idea that a theory is something less than a fact is just silly. Explanations aren't theories. ID explains things, but provides no scientific theory. Quantum theory, on the other hand, has lots of "holes" but is a fine scientiic theory. A really good book related to the things we've been discussing is "How To Think About Weird Things". It doesn't tell you *what* to think, but how to go about thinking about extraordinary claims. It has a brief passage about ID and explains what a scientific theory is, why scientists value theories, and what properties theories have. It's a little expensive, but a very fine book.

[Hal Helms]

Brian, if only I'd known! Just think of the free dinners I could have wrangled under the "hospitality" rubric...sigh...such a wasted opportunity.

[govokinolij]

Hi

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

Bye

[Mel Steffor]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we took a good look at our DNA. In the matrix of our genes it reads, 'Made by the God' on the underside. We just need stronger microscopes to find the answer. Mel Steffor

[Mel Steffor]

Joking aside, if we could just find where God signed his work on our bodies in the matirix code. The following answers the question about Intelligent Design. The reason I came to you site is I have an important message to tell you and everyone. The message is from God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost respectively sent in the Spring of 2006. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First . The message is this:
In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death. What does this mean? In other words this means Birth is Last and Last is Birth. Think of this as a continuos circle of life. Birth, Life, Death, Birth. God also said that Judgment will be before Birth in Heaven. AS birth on Earth is painful so will birth in Heaven. Yes, God has recently made contact and he sent a messenger. OH, one more point of interest. Did you know that Mike Douglas died on his birthday? Mel Steffor

[Stephanie Hoyst]

Mel that was an excellent comment that you made.
"Wouldn't it be interesting if we took a good look at our DNA. In the matrix of our genes it reads, 'Made by the God' on the underside. We just need stronger microscopes to find the answer."
Or it could read, Made in Heaven somewhere. Thanks Mel that was really good.

[Mel Steffor]

Correction: To the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. It means that Birth is Last and Birth is First. Sorry for the error. God talks in symbols and opposites at times so it takes time to figure out what he is saying. Some of his messages are clearer than others, plus they have multiple meanings.

[allophava]

Hosting - to udostępnianie przez dostawcę usługi internetowej zasobów serwerowni. Jeszcze precyzyjniej definiując polega to na "zarezerwowaniu" daniu do wykorzystania danej objętości dysku twardego, na której jest dozwolone zapisywać pliki tworzące sens stron WWW i bądź użyczenie powierzchni dysku jak miejsca dla plików "leżących" w skrzynce mailowej. Inna odmiana hostingu to użyczenie znacznych obszarów dysku, a nawet kompletnego serwera czy też kilku - jako materialnego nośnika dla dużego serwisu internetowego, portalu, grupy dyskusyjnej i innych. W każdej z nich chodzi o użyczenie fizycznego położenia (dysku lub dysków twardych) dla zmieszczenia przeróżnych postaci danych dostępnych przez Internet.Masa usług hosting jest płatnych. Właśnie dlatego nie mamy na celu Cię okłamywać. Nasze usługi hostingteż są niedarmowe, z jednym wyjątkiem, nasze usługi hosting są jednymi z najtańszych w Internecie. Dajemy w ofercie hosting na najlepszym poziomie, po najmniejszejdopuszczalnej cenie. Przekonaj się sam i przetestuj naszą jakość! Zapraszamy na portal. Nasze usługi hostingtakże są niedarmowe, z jednym wyjątkiem, nasze usługi hosting są jednymi z najbardziej opłacalnych w sieci Nie jesteś w stanie w to dowierzyć, czy kwestionujesz jeszcze słuszność tego, co tu jest napisane? Jeśli tak to bezzwłocznie zajrzyjwstąp na nasz portal i przekonaj się o trafności tego tekstu Nasze usługi hosting oferują najlepszą jakość w najniższej cenie. Nie będziesz musiał przeznaczać ogromnych kwot za usługi hosting. Dajemy w ofercie dużą ilość upustów i promocji specjalnie dla stałych, ale i również dla świeżych kontrahentów. Zajrzyj już dzisiaj na nasz serwis. Przekonaj się ile jesteś w stanie oszczędzić z nami.
Hosting