"People critical of religion may fear it", Sort of!

In a letter to the editor "People critical of religion may fear it" may have a point, but I do not believe it is the one Joe [the letter-writer] is trying to make.  First off, a few things from his letter:

"My children were taught in public schools that their ancestors were monkeys, then perhaps they evolved all the way back to the ooze in the Nile River. "

He obviously doesn't really understand what evolution is, let alone how it's being taught in the classroom.  But that's pretty typical of theists.  They seem more afraid of something causing them to actually think about their religious beliefs than damn near anything else.  As for morality:

"Hollywood immorality seems to have crept into our society. If we are but evolved animals, any established morality is out the window. "

Is religion a viable source of morality?  I know theists like to make such claims, but when you look at not only the scores of differences between the moral beliefs of the multitude of religions in the world, but also look at many of the things done in the name of a religion!

Yes, some of the ideas of what is considered moral today and what is not may stem from one or more religious beliefs -- but it is not the belief in a particular religion that makes something moral, but societies decision of what is considered moral!  If that was true then theists wouldn't be committing any crimes let alone the most heinous!  How many religious leaders have been found to be much less moral than their own teachings?  How many children have to die from medical neglect due to someone's religious beliefs. No, as we have discussed many times, morality and religion do not go hand-in-hand, as many theists like to delude themselves.  And Joe, your information about Hitler is just plain wrong:

"By the way, Adolf Hitler, of no known religious affiliation, was an angry man who killed thousands of religious people."

Hitler's words often invoked Christianity, for example: (I underlined for emphasis)

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years." (Adolf Hitler from the address he gave after coming to power in Germany (from "My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939", Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press, London, 1942)."

As you can see, Hitler agrees with you about your Christianity being the very basis for morality, don't you feel special -- you have the same moral code as Adolf Hitler!  Yes, if you read any of Hitler's speeches, you will see Hitler invoked Christianity often!  Joe, you said:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

Freedom 'of' includes the freedom to not believe -- or else it's not really freedom is it?  Just another form of religious control and oppression.  Joe, I have a question, supposed we did turn the US into a theocracy, which seems to be what you are preaching.  Suppose it didn't pick your particular version of Christianity.  What would you do then?  Freedom of Religion is what should be preventing that, but you aren't really about Freedom of Religion.  Your idea seems to be Freedom of religion, as long as the religion is yours.  That's not freedom!

OK, enough of his letter for the moment.  I would like to talk about fear!  I am not afraid of religion, and every non-theist I know isn't afraid of it.  If there is some deity that I will meet after I die, I will stand by my life!  Instead of trying to use a deity as an excuse, I live my life here and now!  When I make a mistake I pay for it now!  I make amends with people, I have committed no crimes, nor contemplated any, I don't even cheat on my taxes.  And I live my life without the need to beg forgiveness from anyone, let alone your version of a deity.  You, on the other hand, live in fear!

Yes, look at your religion, it's based on fear.  You try and live some aspects of your life by a set of rules handed to you by other men -- in the hopes your deity has the same set of rules.  You refuse to take responsibility for your actions because you regularly ask your deity to forgive your trespasses, instead of getting the forgiveness from the people you have hurt.  You believe because you are scared of some eternal punishment.  If you disagree, tell me how do you preach to non-believers?  Look at this article from the World News Daily, "Will scientists who reject God face greater judgment?".  While the WND isn't great source for news, I see this article as an example of the fear Christians keep trying to play upon.

"Are those who have a science degree and have rejected Christ going to be held more accountable before God based upon Romans 1:20?"

Why could this be the case, because -- according to the author:

"The holder of a science degree has had a high level of exposure to irreducible complexity, information science and special design, clearly illustrating the existence of God and His attributes."

So . . . since you have a science degree, you are more exposed to pseudoscience . . . and if you fail to recognize pseudoscience as God's work, you will be judged by God more harshly than anyone else.  Anyone else see the 'fear' at work.  It's not' believe because it's right', it's not' believe because it's good' . . . no, the message is 'believe or else'.  It's not just being judged more harshly, but your condemnation will be greater because you refuse to agree that pseudoscience is really some deity playing around..

"They spend years, if not a lifetime, being exposed to an unlimited amount of detail of special design, and many still reject it. As a result, will their condemnation be greater? I believe so."

You typically hear things along this line from theists when they mention things like 'going to hell!' . . . I have a question . . . why do they feel they have to threaten to gain adherents?  The first thing I usually hear is not all the good things done in the name of a particular religion, but that if I don't join their particular branch, I will burn for all eternity.  Fear is the marketing message!

If you read the whole WND article, don't you just love the author's analogy at the end.  Eating high cholesterol food isn't bad for you!  How can it be bad for you, it's in the Bible:

"Since her restrictions were completely contrary to what I can eat based upon Scripture, I knew it was her source of information, “man’s wisdom,” that was wrong and not mine."

Scientific evidence has supported for years that saturated fats and high level of cholesterol are bad for your arteries and your heart.  But, this guy treats the Bible as a nutritional textbook!  Even the research he hints at claiming that it's not really bad for you is misleading.  The degree is what has changed, not the unhealthy aspects of such a diet. But it doesn't matter to the author, if anything is based on man's knowledge, it gets immediately dismissed.

Back to the original article and the idea of 'fear', you are afraid to live your life, to take responsibility for your actions, to live without the crutch of an ancient belief set. And you think it's others that are afraid?

There is one thing I fear, it's the damage theists do, all in the name of their religion.  Your homophobia, your intolerance, your willingness to execute your own children through a lack of basic medical care, your efforts to destroy science education in the name of your belief set, your need to pass laws protecting your rights at the expense of the rights of others -- are just a few examples.  Disagree?  How about your own intolerance.  Let me repeat:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

You see?  You can't even handle the idea of non-believers, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or apathists.   What you seem to be afraid of is a dissenting point of view.

Whats Wrong with This Picture -- A Review of a Review of a Book We Haven't Read Yet?

Talk about knee-jerk reactions.  Here is a review of a book the Discovery Institute (DI) has not yet seen . . . huh?  Actually it's a review of a review of a book the DI has not yet seen.  Here's their post, "Early Review of A.N. Wilson’s Anti-Darwin Biography Could Have Been Predicted".  No byline for this one, wonder why?

The review they are reviewing is here: "‘Radical’ new biography of Darwin is unreliable and inaccurate".  Without a doubt it's a scathing review of a biography of Charles Darwin called "Charles Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker", by A.N. Wilson.  Since I haven't read it either, this is a commentary on the DI's review of the review -- it is not a review of the review of the review of the book the DI hasn't read yet.

Here's what I see.  The DI does not like Charles Darwin.  You know many the reasons why.  They blame Darwin for pretty much every bad thing that has ever happened, especially racism, Hitler, the decline in church attendance . . . an endless list.  So therefore, anything that bashes Darwin has to be a good thing in their very narrow minds.  So the question is how to publicize something that says nasty things about Darwin.  That's the knee jerk reaction I was talking about, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong about Darwin, it's a bash at him, so it deserves to be publicized.

The review (the real one, not the DI's review of the review) went through a number of claims made by A.N Wilson.  In a nutshell John van Wyhe said the book is wildy off the mark from anything Charles Darwin did or said. van Wyhe concludes with:

"The book claims to be a “radical reappraisal of one of the great Victorians, a book which isn’t afraid to challenge the Darwinian orthodoxy”. The result is one of the most unreliable, inaccurate and tendentious anti-Darwin books of recent times."

Let me repeat "unreliable", "inaccurate", and "tendentious".  That's pretty scathing!  A review like that would normally put me off paying much attention, especially when the review is published in a reputable source like "New Scientist".  No, New Scientist isn't perfect, for example their 2009 cover saying "Darwin was Wrong!" while the article didn't say that, only that Darwin was wrong on some details, but right in the overall concept.  But it does have a much more positive reputation than anything put out by  . . . say . . . the Discovery Institute.

So, back the original question, how do they publicize this bashing of Darwin?  First step, attack the reviewer with an accusation:

John van Wyhe is a Darwinian partisan

Which may or may not be true.  But it doesn't matter to the DI.  Of course it matters not if any criticism of Wilson's book is based on something other than partisanship, right?

Since van Wyhe contradicted many of the things Wilson claimed in his book, they have to call him names and try and make it sound as if the only reason van Wyhe would say nice things about Darwin is because he's a partisan, so his defense is only what's expected.

A question, who would you contact to write a review about a person?  I guess the DI would want to contact someone who knew nothing about the subject themselves so they could offer an objective opinion, right?  That's crap!  Here's who New Scientist contacted about a review:

"John van Wyhe is a historian of science, with a focus on Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, at the National University of Singapore. He holds some academic and research positions, ranging from founder and director of The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online, Scientific Associate, The Natural History Museum (London), a Fellow of the Linnean Society and a Member of the British Society for the History of Science. He has given more than 50 public lectures on Darwin in more than a dozen countries. He lectures and broadcasts on Darwin, evolution, science and religion and the history of science around world. He also wrote The Darwin Experience, a biographical book about Charles Darwin." (Wikipedia: John van Wyhe)

They contacted an expert on the subject.  A historian, someone knowledgeable.  Doesn't that make sense?

Just for comparison, just who is A.N. Wilson?

"Andrew Norman Wilson is an English writer and newspaper columnist, known for his critical biographies, novels, works of popular history and religious views." (Wikipedia: Andrew Norman Wilson)

Look a little closer, "known for his critical biographies", just the sort of author you want to make that your reviewer knows the subject at hand!  According to that Wikipedia page, he's been accused of inaccuracies in his biographies before.  So why might the DI want to attack the reviewer?

You may or may not remember this post from a few years back, "Why would the Discovery Institute call it 'Censorship' ", and I said:

"The DI are masters at Public Relations and Marketing. Anyone who says something negative about the DI or Intelligent Design is automatically a target. Do you remember little gem from 2006: "Canadian Quilters Attack Intelligent Design" from Evolution 'News' and Views and "“ID is a Myth” Quilt Wins National Contest" from Uncommon Descent. Yes, a quilter . . . a quilter did a quilt that made fun of Intelligent Design . . . and she is suddenly part of a cabal of Canadian Quilters who are attacking ID. See my point? They can't even allow someone to make a little fun of their pet version of Creationism without trying to gain some PR mileage out of it. A humorous quilt is suddenly an attack!"

 Anything that can be construed as an attack on ID is immediately counter-attacked back in a fit of defensiveness.  I also spoke about their knee-jerkisms a number of times, like "More 'Knee-Jerkiness' from the Discovery Institute, Emphasis on Jerkiness" and described their reactions like this:

• "First, if you say something nice about Intelligent Design (ID), the DI falls all over itself to say nice things about you.  It doesn't seem to matter if what you say is pretty well meaningless, even if the bias of the author is well known -- case-in-point the recent posts (here and here) based on a new book by Tom Bethell.  
• The other knee-jerk reaction is it you say anything that can be construed as negative about ID, they immediately jump on their keyboards and denounce you, usually claiming you didn't explain ID correctly and that you aren't fairly representing the official position of the DI.  case-in-point today's post: "In the Public Interest? ProPublica Misrepresents Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute Policy"

So, this is a pretty normal tactic of the DI, a knee-jerk reaction without giving any real thought to what they are going to say.  I mean how else do you consider an attack on Canadian Quilters?  Their immediate and first reaction is one of being defensive.

Which can explain a lot.  You see there are a number of mechanisms we use when we get defensive.  Denial, rationalization, and others.  The one I am most interested in right now is 'projection'.  What the DI is doing is using this to claim that van Wyhe is protecting Darwin because he's a partisan.  They pretty well ignore most of his critique, focusing on the one area it touches on their marketing.  But the reality is who is being partisan here?  The DI is the one attacking van Wyhe, not because his critique is invalid, but because he dared provide a scathing review of someone who can be perceived an ally of the DI.  They accuse van Wyhe of partisanship, yet it looks more like they are the ones acting as a partisan.

If van Wyhe's critiques are based on fact, then the one being a partisan, or maybe calling them an anti-Darwin partisan, is the DI.  If his critique is based on conjecture and opinion, then the DI might have a point.  Read the review itself and tell me what you think.

Little casey luskin, when he was with the DI, once actually posted

"The moral of this story is this: Whether the case ultimately wins or loses in court, don’t speak out publicly on a case until you know the facts. " (source)

If this was truly one of the guiding principles of the DI, they would never had reviewed this review until they could conduct their own review of the book itself, but they can't do that yet because:

"We haven’t yet seen a copy of A.N. Wilson’s forthcoming anti-Darwin book"

Which is reasonable, to a point. It also means they have no way of knowing if van Wyhe review is valid or not.  Actually that's not true, they could check out all the examples van Wyhe wrote about, but that would take too much effort.  So they simply write a meaningless disclaimer.  They also said this:

"Wilson’s competence or incompetence on Darwin remains to be seen with our own eyes."

While this sounds reasonable too, I see it as another disclaimer, a way of avoiding any real responsibility for what they write.  If Wilson's biography is found to be crap, then they can point to this line and claim innocence.  In the meantime, did they address any of the examples from van Wyhe's review and refute any of them?  No, they did not.  Let's discuss:

1. Did the DI examine van Wyhe's description of how Wilson defined Darwin's theories?  No, they love to create their own straw-men and then demolish them, so maybe they feel Wilson is a kindred spirit.
2. Did the DI look at Wilson's use of 'conflict' as an evolutionary mechanism and how that contrasted with what Darwin actually wrote?  No, but then they love the mischaracterization of 'survival of the fittest' themselves.
3. Did they address Wilson's apparent confusing between Darwin's theories and Lamarck's?  In a dismissive sort of way, but that doesn't detract from the apparent delight they had trying to dismiss, or at least diminish the review.
4. Did they address the material obviously copied from at a source who is notoriously anti-Darwin?  Why bother with facts, right?
5. Did they address any other other identified factual errors?  They acknowledge that the errors might make the book "problematic", but never check into the things themselves.

No, they did none of this.  What they did do was grab onto one of the things that they have been pushing themselves, Darwin's supposed connection to Hitler, which has been debunked time and time again.  Not that debunking their ideas has ever stopped them from pushing them.

The DI ends with this:

"The key is exactly what does Wilson say and how does he say it. We know well by now to be cautious of Darwin’s defenders. They are often cagey and misleading. So at this point, who knows?"

Darwin's defenders are cagey and misleading?  So, instead of being cautious about a biography from someone known to play fast and loose with the facts --they are being cautious of a historian of science; the founder and director of The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online, Scientific Associate, The Natural History Museum (London); a Fellow of the Linnean Society and a Member of the British Society for the History of Science.  Why is that?  Guess which one aligns with the goals and tactics of the DI itself?

As you can see, it's not van Wyhe who can be seen as not being objective.  If the DI was being objective, even in the slightest, they would have waited for their own review once they could actually examine Wilson's own words.  But they can't let any bashing of Darwin pass unnoticed, even if it's nonsense.  Besides, if they wait and discovery that van Wyhe is right in his critique, does anyone think that would appear in any of their posts?  Of course not, they would then see reviewing this review as a missed opportunity.

So now let me ask you a question, who is playing at partisanship?

Time to Re-Write History . . . Again

A few years have past so now it's time for the Discovery Institute (DI) to resurrect David Coppedge and paint him as another martyr for the cause.  The post by the toothless chihuahua davey 'klingy' klinghoffer is "World Magazine Tells David Coppedge's Powerful Story" and, as I recall, it wasn't a very powerful story, actually it was pretty dull.

Let me nutshell it for you, if you aren't familiar.  Coppedge preaches to co-workers about Intelligent Design and his personal homophobia to the point of Human Resource complaints and does a poor job in an unpaid leadership position.  He gets counseled and relieved of his leadership position . . which was an unofficial position, an additional duty.  He sues claiming religious discrimination for his 'demotion'.  During the run up to his trial, he gets downsized because he wasn't keeping his skills up-to-date and . . . as you can guess . . . adds that to his lawsuit.  He loses his lawsuit and so the DI paints him as yet another victim, like John Freshwater, Guillermo Gonzales, Catherine Coker, and a few select others.

While klingy likes to paint him in the most positive light possible, Coppedge's co-workers painted him in a very different light.  Klingy repeated Coppedge's claims that his advocacy of Intelligent Design (ID) was always done in "the most respectful, appropriate manner" and "If anyone expressed disinterest, he says, he immediately backed down" and yet the complaints by his co-workers, multiple co-workers and managers, not only about his advocacy, but his job performance painted a very different picture.  They used terms like 'unwelcome' and 'disruptive'.  Eventually he was fired as part of a downsizing event, but you know that the DI can't just leave it at that.

Just to contrast, Since 1996, the year Coppedge was hired as a system administrator, I have been a Delphi programmer, Web Developer, Programming Instructor, Program Manager, Project Lead, and a Java Programmer.  What all Information Technologists learn quickly is that the key to continuous employment is constant upgrade of skills.  The field changes so quickly that your expertise can become obsolete much faster than many people will believe.  So the idea of Coppedge being downsized when his skillset was no longer needed is easily believable.

As a matter of fact, I think I have heard this tune before.  Yes, I had to check, but in 2011 the same psuedo-news organization reported about Coppedge only that DI write-up was by Anika Smith instead of klingy say pretty much the same sort of things.  I haven't noticed anything from Smith lately, so I guess it's up to klingy to re-write things.

Bottom line for Coppedge, he lost his lawsuit, you can read the statement of decision here.  Coppedge and his lawyers had a bunch of objections to the proposed statement, but it was approved by the Court. This decision certainly showed Coppedge was not the respectful and appropriate co-worker the DI likes to claim he is, nor is he one who backed down when disinterest was shown to his religious ideas.  What he was doing was preaching during work, he was also performing his additional duty poorly, and refused to keep his skills current and eventually got fired during a downsizing.  The DI likes to claim that as a senior person, he normally wouldn't be part of being downsized, but when you factor in not keeping his skills current -- that makes him an obvious candidate.  Here is a quote form the decision:

" . . . the evidence reflects that Coppedge was less skilled than those retained, regarding the skills needed on Cassini going forward; Coppedge himself testified that the other SAs [System Administrators] were more expert in these areas."

In another light, this also demonstrates how quickly the DI is to try and re-write history.  In Stephen C. Meyer's book "The Signature in the Cell" Meyer completely rewrote the 'Sternberg Peer Review Controversy' until it was nearly unrecognizable from the reality.  Every once in a while they bring this subject up again and keep trying to peddle their revisionist history.

They repeated attack the Dover Decision, most recently here, even after claiming that it wasn't particularly binding nor had any lasting effect.  How many times will they attempt and re-try the trial?  I guess we'll find out pretty much every December.  They literally repeat the testimony they would have wanted to give if they had the intestinal fortitude to do so during the trial.

Often their history re-writes take historical figures and re-baptize them as Intelligent Design proponents, like Alfred Russel Wallace, Thomas Jefferson, and even Anaxagoras, pre-Socratic Greek philosopher.  Of course these folks are safely dead and cannot refute their re-baptismal.

The history re-write they most often use is to try and blame Darwin for pretty much everything under the sun that they disagree with.  'Darwinism' is the blame for social ills, Hitler and the Holocaust, and even the decline of church attendance.  If it weren't for Darwin we would all be living happy, religious lives . . . as though there were no problems before the advent of Charles Darwin.  Sure, our history books show the world was all happiness and light before Darwin was born, right?

Well, that's enough today.  It's 'nice' to know that the DI will continue to re-write history.  I am glad that most of us don't fall for their foolishness.  In fact is there a difference between the DI and an old-fashioned snake oil salesman peddling his wares from a traveling wagon?  I don't see much of one, at least not philosophically.

Why Teaching Biology may be Harder than it Needs to be!

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is an online comic strip that I think I don't look at nearly often enough.  To the right is an old one that was recently passed to me.  It was too good not to pass on.  Have you run into someone so entrenched in their position, nothing in the way of logic or evidence can possibly dissuade them?  I know I have! It does illustrate that it can be hard to get some points across, particularly when the person you are talking with has been indoctrinated in their view that evidence gets summarily dismissed.  I do enjoy, as odd as it might sound, driving believers to the point where they have to invoke their deity to keep their belief set in play.  Check out panel 4: "Put here by Satan to fool non-believers". Funny, I have heard two versions of that.  On the one hand it was placed by Satan to fool folks, however more often I have heard the evidence was placed by God to test people's faith.  The end result is the same, the believer denies the evidence.  But sometimes I want to put two of them in the same room and let them duke it out to determine who 'planted' the evidence.  It always amazes me the lengths people will go to to maintain their delusions! It's not just theists, but people who believe in other supernatural foolishness, homeopathy, climate-change deniers, and -- of course -- the whole anti-vaccination movement.  Evidence is only meaningful if it can be twisted to support their entrenched position! Hopefully there isn't an actual 'Creation History Foundation', but you never know.  How often have we spoken about the Discovery Institute re-writing history? Think about how their pseudo-historian Michael Flannery, for example, has been telling us how Darwin is responsible for racism and Hitler -- regardless of the fact . . . and I do mean fact . . . because Hitler claimed to have been given a divine inspiration! While many Christians hear that and get upset, claiming that Hitler wasn’t a Christian that he just used the Bible as an excuse to justify and rationalize his actions. I agree! But then why does the DI insist that Darwin’s work caused the Nazi atrocities? Sounds a little self-serving and more than a little dishonest. Here is a something from Main Kampf just to prove my point: " . . . [Jews] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation." (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt) History re-writes abound, things like the whole 'The US was established as a Christian Nation' to the DI re-baptizing people who are safely dead as 'Intelligent Design' supporters.  I commented on that a few years back in "Social Studies next on the firing line?" and Laurie Lebo had an article in 2011: "Fundamentalist-led Texas History Standards get 'D' from Conservative Think Tank."  There she reports that: "Texas’ new standards are evangelical-led revisionist history" So while there may not (yet) be a 'Creation History Foundation', one may come to pass.  I will be pretty confident that it will have as much to do with history as the DI has to do with science and it will probably be based in Texas . . . sorry Texas! I hope that you enjoy SMBC as much as I do, and as much as I plan to do on a more regular basis.  I do have a link to a short list of comics I do read daily.  That list includes XKCD, Dilbert, and Jesus and Mo.  I will be adding SMBC to that list. Note to SMBC:  I did copy your comic image for inclusion here in case the image link doesn't work in the future.  I've had that problem on a couple of other sites.  If you object, please let me know and I will change it to a link.

Darwin is Responsible for . . .

I have a Google News Alert that doesn't seem to be working well.  I have it set that anytime the Discovery Institute posts something newsworthy, it should go off and I would get an email notification.  The problem is that it keeps going off even if they aren't posting anything worth looking at.

I won't give you a link this time because they have done nothing more than repeat a tired old line of theirs.  I'll give you a hint.  If we held a contest and tried to determine who is the single most reprehensible figure of the 20th century, who do you think  would win?  Yes, you already know the name, and he doesn't work at the DI.  Of course, he does appear to be some sort of hero for them because they cannot stop writing about him.  Not only that, but their pet 'historian', you know who I mean as well, has now tried to associate Darwin with the cause for not only the Second World War, but the first one as well.  They even had one of their own 'executives' produce a 12, or so, minute video explaining this most recent 'revelation'.  Of course everything their pet 'historian' has accomplished has met with a much success in historical circles as their pet team of crack 'scientists' has met in scientific circles will never deter the DI from continuing to post foolishness.

So, if you haven't heard by now, the Discovery Institute seems to blame Charles Darwin for the Civil War, WWI, WWII, disease, racism, poverty, crime, infidelity, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, divorce, the sub-prime mortgage debacle, the assassinations of Lincoln, both Kennedy's, and King,  the lack of Congressional term limits, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and the failure of the Chicago Cubs, to name a few.

I may have to cancel my Google News Alert because it's sure not doing it's job!  Maybe I'll just set it to go off once a year and hope for a change they actually post something worth reading at once in a given year.  I know, I am being way too optimistic!