This is the final article in our 3-part series.  (Click here to read Part 1 or Part 2).  In the first article we took an introductory look at the concept of what is called “theistic evolution” – the belief that God used evolution as his “creative” process.  Many people seem to think that this is the perfect solution to the whole creation vs. evolution controversy.  Last month (in Part 2) we reviewed a few biblical problems with this view and this month we will take a look at a few scientific issues.

On one hand, some might say there aren’t any scientific problems with theistic evolution for the simple reason that whatever scientific barriers might exist, they can be overcome by the fact that God is all-powerful.  In other words, it’s primarily a matter of looking at the concept of naturalistic (or atheistic) evolution in general and anywhere there is a significant problem, we just insert God’s creative power.  For example, atheistic evolutionists have a very hard time legitimately explaining how you get something out of nothing (i.e. the origin of the universe).  No problem for a theistic evolutionist, because he or she can just simply call upon God at the point to get the ball rolling.  Then God is free to go back to doing whatever it was He was doing in the first place, because natural law can take over from there.  Then when there are problems getting the first stars or galaxies to form, they can simply have God step back in and help out.  Fast-forwarding (and skipping many other challenges) we arrive at an Earth which has cooled down, but is still lifeless.  We need to get non-living chemicals to form a living cell.  This has plagued scientists who have been feverishly experimenting for the past 60+ years.  No problem for a theistic evolutionist, however, because they can once again call on God to lend a hand and then go back again to doing… whatever.

This is very much a “god-of-the-gaps” scenario and is not at all satisfying or acceptable to the naturalistic scientists and it would never be allowed to be taught in public schools or universities.  Some might say that creationists rely on a “god-of-the-gaps” in a similar way.  The main difference is that we start with Scripture to see what God said He did and don’t just evoke His power whenever we are having difficulty in finding natural explanations.  For example, we don’t expect to find a natural explanation for the origin of man, because Genesis tells us that God miraculously created Adam from the dust of the Earth.  It was a one-time event.  On the other hand, the origin of the various people groups (I don’t use the term “races”) can be naturalistically explained based on how genetics work, along with reading about the Bible’s historical record of the flood and dispersion at the Tower of Babel.  Therefore, we don’t need to evoke a miracle to introduce a variety of skin color and other features (such as eye shape).

Here’s another issue with theistic evolution.  If a single celled organism evolved into every other life form on this planet, where are all the intermediate forms?  There should be countless examples, but all evolutionists have is a small handful all of which are highly disputable.  Let’s think about these intermediates a bit further as well.  According to current evolutionary thinking, some type of reptile evolved into modern birds.  That would require converting the two-way lung of a reptile into the one way lung of a bird, not to even mention all of the other structural changes such as feathers and hollow bones – which are actually part of the breathing system!  How could the intermediate creature survive?  We can’t really even imagine intermediate stages that would function well and we don’t have any fossil record of such an animal.  And this is just one example.  Many others could also be given such as transitioning from a three-chambered heart (like an amphibian) into a four-chambered heart (like in a mammal).

There are many other scientific problems with the whole story of evolution, but I personally feel the biggest argument against theistic evolution isn’t really related to science (as many problems as there are), but to what God told us He did.  If He truly did use evolution, it would have been no problem at all for him to describe it in general in Genesis… but He didn’t.  He told us Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, Eve, from the side of Adam, etc… not at all what modern evolutionary science purports.  We all have to decide what our ultimate source of authority is… man or God.  (“Let God be true, but every man a liar.” – Romans 3:4,  “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.” – 1 Cor 3:19)

If you have any further questions about  God, creation, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a FREE ENGAGEMENT or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

PART 2: “How could you be so arrogant to say that God could not use evolution?  I have a degree in Biology and know that evolution is a fact and that all scientists believe it!”  

Last month we began a mini-series of articles related to possibility of God having used evolution as His creative process. (Click here to view Part 1 of this series.) The above quote was just one of many that I have received over the years from people who believe it is very reasonable to believe that God simply used evolution as His means of “creation”. Therefore, they conclude that there’s no reason to doubt evolution and we can be quite content in believing in both the Bible and evolution. As we mentioned last month, this view (often referred to as “Theistic Evolution”) admittedly seems on the surface to be a great solution to the apparent tension that exists between the Bible and what the majority of scientists believe regarding the origin and development of life. However, as we’ve pointed out in previous articles, things that seem plausible on the surface often turn out to be riddled with insurmountable difficulty upon further investigation.

We started the series with an introduction to this issue and mentioned that we would subsequently be delving into two sub-topics: (a) Biblical problems with Theistic Evolution, and (b) Scientific problems with Theistic Evolution. This month’s article focuses on a few of the biblical challenges.

One of the most obvious biblical issues would be the fact that the creation account is very straightforward and does not describe evolutionary processes. Most people readily recognize that Genesis chapters 1-2 recount a simple progression of miraculously creative acts during a period of six solar days. Therefore, if they wish to adhere to modern evolutionary biology, they simply relegate the first few chapters of Genesis as allegory, poetry or some other non-literal interpretation. The Bible unmistakably contains passages that are poetic and allegorical in nature and each time it is greatly evidenced by the context. However, Genesis 1-2 was not written in this fashion, but rather, as “historical narrative”. Space prohibits listing all of the evidence for this, but volumes have been written along these lines. Realizing that the text itself does not support evolutionary theories, some religious leaders have gone as far as to dismiss Genesis altogether in favor of current secular views. The inherent danger with this is “Why stop at Genesis? Why not take it to its logical conclusion and start questioning other portions of Scripture?” One such example comes from Bishop Hugh Montefiore writing in the Confirmation Notebook (fifth edition – 1984 SPCK, London):

“The Garden of Eden is a ‘myth’… From the viewpoint of anthropology it is exceedingly unlikely that there was a First Man and Woman…

Human beings are the result of evolution, and shaped by natural selection. Self-centeredness and aggression were essential at every stage of evolution…

What the Cross is Not… The Son standing in my place to take the punishment that I ought to have. Such a view is immoral. In any case no one person could suffer the whole world’s punishments.”

Arguably, the most significant difficulty with theistic evolution is that it introduces death before sin. The Bible makes it clear that God’s original creation was free from evil and that it was Adam’s sin that brought death into His creation (Romans 5:12). If God used evolution, then we have millions of years of death, disease, mutations, suffering, etc. all long before Adam even appeared on the planet. So when he arrived, his sin did not bring about death… it had been around for eons of time. If mankind is not responsible for brining death in to God’s world, then Jesus Christ wasted his time dying on the cross!

Commenting on the idea of God using evolution, atheist Carl Sagan logically stated:

“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business if there was any competition.”

Evolution represents a very random, inefficient process with lots of death and disease. This hardly seems to be the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving Creator. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33), but of wonder, power and majesty. I think Carl Sagan noted saw the illogic of God using evolution better than some Christians.

One other person who seems to understand the fallacy of compromising Scripture with modern evolutionary views is Richard Dawkins who is one of the world’s leading evolutionists and a very outspoken atheist. He commented regarding Christians who try to take Genesis as just an allegory and not literal:

“Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.” [Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 25]

Pointing out a further problem (to Biologos, a group of theistic evolutionists) one blogger noted that they have…

“no actual principle to stand on when they oppose a literal reading of Genesis but support a literal reading of a story of a virgin birth.” ["BioLogos gets in bed with the fundies," Why Evolution Is True, 22 July 2010.]

Another author responded to Biologos with the following comments:

“If your intention in ‘Saving Darwin’ is to show ‘how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,’ what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution. In doing this, you and your colleagues at Biologos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions.” [Al Mohler, "On Darwin and Darwinism: An Open Letter to Professor Giberson," AlbertMohler.com, 26 August 2010.]

A final biblical issue of contention with evolution is found in a statement from Jesus himself. In Mark 10:6 (and Matthew 19:4) Jesus was responding to the Pharisees regarding marriage and divorce. In doing so, he stated “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.” According to Jesus, Adam and Eve were here right at the beginning. According to evolution, however, modern man (which would have included Adam and Eve) did not appear on the planet until perhaps 100,000 years ago. If evolution is true and the universe came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago, then the appearance of man (100,000 years ago) is nowhere near the beginning. In fact it would be 0.0007% away from the END!

Check back next month for a brief review of some of the scientific problems with theistic evolution.

If you have any further questions about  God, creation, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a FREE engagement or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

“How could you be so arrogant to say that God could not use evolution?  I have a degree in Biology and know that evolution is a fact and that all scientists believe it!”  

That was the response I received from someone who attended one of my engagements recently.  She was noticeably upset and carried on for quite a while during our open Q&A session following the lecture (which on this particular occasion was in a church with about 600 in attendance). So how would you respond to such a question?  I guess that largely depends on what you believe is the correct answer.  Maybe you have asked a similar question yourself.   Maybe you are still asking this question.  Maybe you have had others pose this question, but you did not feel adequately prepared to give a well-reasoned response.

How did I respond?  First and foremost, I made every effort to be gracious and affirming.  Without this effort, my actual answer may easily have not even been heard.   Even though she did not ask her question or make her statements in a very kind or respectful way, I sincerely thanked her for being willing to share her honest thoughts and stated that there’s a good chance that many others in attendance that morning may have the same question.  I then went on to briefly address each point she raised. (By the way, after the event, she approached me in the lobby with a big smile, shook my hand and walked away!)

Where does this question come from?  I believe it is largely generated by the fact that many Christians find themselves in a bit of an apparent dilemma. They certainly believe in God and view the Bible as being his inspired Word, but they are also under the impression that scientist have virtually proven that evolution is a fact.  They may also believe that science just deals with facts and you can’t really argue with that, because it is what it is.  On the other hand, they reason that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways and it doesn’t matter so much what we believe about creation, as long as we at least believe in Jesus.  (We’ve dealt with the latter statement in previous articles.)  The easiest way to resolve this apparent conundrum is to simply merge the two together.  “God used evolution.  Case closed!  No need to argue with either side.”

On the surface this seems like the best solution and I believe that most Christians who hold to this position do so in all sincerity. It also may seem like it is really taking the “higher ground” position… not completely rejecting either side.  I personally believe that evolution and religion are very compatible.  Really?  Yes, really.  What’s the catch?  Here’s the catch… Evolution and religion are very compatible, but not evolution and Christianity!  Religion is largely “man’s” idea of God (or “a” god).  There are so many different religions because there are so many different people and they all have their own ideas about who or what God is, why we are here and what he want from us, etc.  Christianity, on the other hand, is “God’s” idea of God.  I personally believe that what God chose to tell us about himself and his creation, rules out the evolutionary theories being taught in schools and universities today.  I think that non-Christians often recognize this more readily than Christians, as evidenced in the following quote from Professor David Oldroyd:

“People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process…”

Professor David Oldroyd, (School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.) writing in The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.

Atheist G. Richard Bozarth wrote:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

So… I believe that you can be quite comfortable in believing that God used evolution as his “creative process” if, and this is a big “if”, you avoid two things.  First of all, do not study Scripture in any real depth.  Secondly, do not analyze evolution scientifically.  The point I am making is that evolution is really not supported by either the Bible or true science.  We will briefly touch on both of these areas in this current series of articles.  Check back next month!

If you have any further questions about  God, creation, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a FREE engagement or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

The Bible clearly states that there was a global, catastrophic flood during Noah’s time, roughly 1,700 years after creation (1,656 according to the genealogies).  Genesis 6-9 gives us the background and a fair amount of details regarding this extraordinary event.  I personally believe that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God, so I have no doubt this is a literal historical event that changed the world forever.

However, many people don’t necessarily have the same view of the Bible and are more apt to be interested in the actual physical evidence.  So is there actually evidence for the Genesis flood?  In this brief answer, we will look at just of few of the many evidences that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible’s account of the flood.  It is interesting to point out, just before delving into the geological evidence, that there are over 270 flood stories from cultures all around the world.  Certainly, some of them have become embellished over the years, but it stands as strong evidence for the reality of this event.  Let’s consider the following lines of physical evidence:

Massive Amounts of Sedimentary Layers

A worldwide flood would deposit massive layers of sedimentary rock all over the planet… and that’s just what we see.  TheGrand Canyonis the best place to see many of these layers because they are greatly exposed.  Some layers of sediment stretch across tremendous amounts of real estate, such as the Tapeat Sandstone which we see stretching from the Grand Canyon, across the US, up into Canada and all the way across the Atlantic into England!

Rapid Deposition

Historically, standard secular geologic models had us believing that these sedimentary layers accumulated slowly over hundreds of millions of years.  Further studies have clearly shown that most of these layers were deposited very rapidly. One example is that fact that these sedimentary layers contain literally billions and billions of fossils.  However, these fossils will only form if the original plants and animals were buried rapidly.  If a cow dies in the field today, other animals will eat the meat, leaving behind the bones, which will themselves eventually decay away and you’ll never even know the cow had been there.  On the other hand, if it gets buried rapidly, even though the flesh will decay away relatively quickly, the bones will last long enough to be converted into a fossil (which doesn’t take hundreds of thousands or millions of years).  The fact that these layers are filled with billions of fossils tells us they were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions and millions of years.  (We even have fossils of fish that were in the process of eating other fish and giving birth!)

Folded Mountains

As another evidence of rapid deposition, we have greatly folded mountains and other sedimentary layers.  For example, the Tapeat Sandstone (in theGrand Canyon) contains sections that are folded 90 degrees!  If these layers were laid down over millions of years, they would have cracked and fractured as they were subsequently folded.  In reality, there is no evidence of cracking whatsoever.  These layers were laid down rapidly and while still soft, they were greatly folded, subsequently hardening into solid rock.

No Erosion Between Layers

As mentioned in the previous point, the actual evidence shows rapid deposition.  But if the layers themselves were laid down rapidly, you lose your evidence for “millions and millions of years” which is so crucial to the evolutionary story.  Recognizing this, secular geologists proposed that the time, while not being represented in the layers themselves, occurred in between the layers… where we see… nothing!  Generally speaking, they say each layer was indeed laid down rapidly, but then sat there for millions of years waiting for the next layer to be deposited. Therefore, all of the time is actually represented in between the layers.  However, if this were true, what would we expect to see?  Well, if a layer sat exposed for millions of years, we would see erosion, soil development, plant growth and bioterbation (i.e. burrowing affects of animals and worms, etc.).  In reality, we don’t see these.  We see flat, knife-edge boundaries between these layers and occasional evidence of very rapid erosion.

Marine Fossils High Above Sea Level

We have fossils of sea creatures all across the continents and in other places that are high above sea level, such as theGrand Canyon(over a mile above sea level)!  We even have marine fossils onMount Everest!  This only makes sense if there was a global flood (with these high mountains having been lower in the past and catastrophically raised at the end of the flood – see Psalm 104:6-9).

These are just a few of the physical evidences that there truly was a global flood and that once again, the biblical record is validated through science.

We read in 2 Peter 3:3-7 that in the last days, skeptics will be scoffing at the return of Christ.  It also says that these same people who doubt the second coming of Christ also are ignorant of God’s initial judgment in the past through the flood of Noah.  Peter actually predicted this phenomenon and it is exactly what we are seeing today.

If you have any further questions about the flood or anything else about God, Christianity or the Bible, don’t hesitate to contact us.  You can even arrange a free engagement or seminar at your church, school, conference or camp.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

I hesitated making this a featured “Question of the Month” for fear that some people would (just by the phrasing of the question) make assumptions as to what my answer was and not actually even read my response. They may assume that I would just be explaining how evil public school teachers are and how we need to attend school board meetings and protest against this injustice. I am thankful that you are taking time to read the answer to see what I actually do have to say, because I believe it is very important.

Let’s take a brief moment to define our terms. Some of this might seem like semantics, but it is vital to our discussion. When we think of someone telling a lie, we typically think of them conveying something that they know is not true. For example, if your son just ate your daughter’s chocolate chip cookie and said he didn’t… that’s a lie. Pretty straight-forward. Consider, however, the following scenario. Let’s say he did actually eat a cookie that was hers, but truly thought it was his brothers (who had given him permission to eat his). Then, even though what he said was not true (that he did not eat her cookie), he was not “lying” because he was not telling you something that he knew to be false. He was simply wrong about what he believed. As a parent, I would certainly handle these two scenarios differently, as would most of you.

Turning our focus to the public school classroom… what are we to think about all the teachers (or professors in the universities) who are teaching molecules-to-man evolution? Are they lying to our children? I think we have a somewhat similar situation to our cookie scenario. It is my personal belief and experience that the vast majority of school teachers are very nice people and are fairly gifted at what they do. They are not “evil” people bent on deceiving as many students as possible, driving home each day laughing sinisterly about how easy it is to fill children’s heads will lies.

Although there certainly are a few exceptions, these teachers are simply teaching what they learned growing-up and in their college education. Some of these teachers are atheistic in their beliefs and teaching evolution not only makes sense to them, but it’s their only choice, since God is not or cannot be part of the equation. Most, however, have some sort of worldview that involves God at least to some extent. The problem is two-fold: (a) They have only been exposed to one side of the debate in their own education, and (b) their personal religious belief doesn’t present any perceived tension between evolution and the existence of God (or a god). Even for many Christian teachers in the public school system… they are quite comfortable with believing in the Bible and evolution. They are under the impression that evolution has been proven or is at least extremely well-supported by science and that the Bible can be interpreted in various ways, allowing for the idea of evolution. Personally, I believe one can be quite at-ease with these two views if you avoid two things: (1) doing any kind of serious study of the Bible and (2) doing any kind of serious examination of evolution. This can be covered in more depth in a future “Question of the Month”.

So, are public school science teachers evil people, lying to our children? I don’t think we should view them this way, nor do I think it is beneficial or respectful. They themselves have been deceived and consequently are teaching things that are false and certainly contrary to God’s Word. We need to realize that this is ultimately a spiritual battle and that they often are not able to discern truth, as is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2:14 “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

What can we do about all that is being taught that is contrary to the inerrant truth’s of Scripture? Much could be said regarding this, but in briefly answering this month’s question, I would summarize a few recommended actions:

• Know the truth ourselves! We first need to know what God’s Word actually teaches, before we can appropriately discern truth from lies. We can also learn more about what science truly has to say about origins, so when we confront others, we can share both from Scripture and science. That’s what our ministry is all about.
• Mentor your own children! Don’t leave this to someone else… not even the church. It is our primary responsibility. Others can certainly help, but we need to be much more proactive in this area.
• Approach the teacher(s) in a very humble and gracious manner regarding your concerns. Ask a lot of questions, rather than simply showing up with the attitude to “proving” how wrong they are. Our Christ-like character will go a lot farther than our arguments ever will!
• Pray! In all of the above, pray and ask God for wisdom… He will not fail you: “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” (James 1:5)

We would love to help you with these areas so please do not hesitate to contact us!

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)

I wish I had a dime for every time I heard someone make this claim. Unfortunately, this not only comes from skeptics, but also from some within the church. I’ve covered this question in depth in my book “Let There Be Light“, but will share just two main points in this brief newsletter.

Point #1: What do you mean by evolution? That’s the first question that needs to be asked. The word “evolution” is used in so many different ways that we first must define what we mean. Some use the term simply to refer to “change over time”. In their minds, because we do indeed observe change in nature, evolution must be a fact. The problem with this is that even though we certainly do see change, it’s not the kind of change that would be required for “molecules-to-man” evolution, which is another definition of evolution altogether… and this is the one that the academic community has in mind when they tell us “evolution is a fact”. (For much more detail, see my book.)

Point #2: What do you mean by science? That’s the second question that needs to be asked. There are a number of definitions of “science” and most of them are somewhat similar to each other. The point here isn’t to determine which one is “correct” but to point out that there are actually two types of science (operational and historical) and distinguishing between the two is crucial, especially when addressing the creation/evolution debate.

Operational science typically deals with things that can be done in a laboratory, performing multiple, repeatable tests, which also allows for potential falsification of one’s initial hypotheses. It is responsible for creating things such as lightning-fast computers, cell phone, space shuttles and finding cures for diseases. It’s great stuff! It may be surprising, but creationists and evolutionists are really not arguing over operational science. Too often skeptics claim that Christians reject science and naively choose to blindly believe the Bible. The truth of the matter is that science owes its origin to Christianity! The majority of scientific disciplines were founded by Bible-believing Christians! They believed that God was the creator of life and the universe and set out to learn more about Him through the observation and study of His creation. Sir Isaac Newton was arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived and he wrote more about faith and the Bible than he did about science! The Bible is not “anti-science” in any way, especially when we keep in mind that there is very often a difference between “science” and “scientist’s opinions”.   While there certainly exists conflict between clear teachings of the Scripture and some scientist’s opinions, there is truly never a conflict between science and the Bible.

The other type of science is called “historical” science and it deals with events that occurred in the unobserved past, are not repeatable and cannot be directly tested in the present. This is actually where the controversy lies! Different scientists have different guesses and assumptions as to what they think happened in the past when no one was around. The Big Bang falls into this category. We were not around to observe this event. We cannot repeat it in the present and cannot test it directly. Scientist can only make guesses and assumptions as to whether or not the Big Bang occurred as well as how and when it supposedly happened.

Interestingly, God’s original six-day creation also falls into this same category. We were not around to observe this event; we certainly cannot repeat it in the present and cannot test it directly.

Both of these views are models that claim to be accurate accounts of our true history. What we then set out to do is to observe the world in which we now live (via operational science) and see if what we find is best explained by the evolutionary worldview model or the biblical creation worldview model. When we do, what we find is that operational science continues to confirm the sensibility of the creation worldview while at the same time consistently reveals seemingly insurmountable barriers to the legitimacy of the evolutionary worldview. Much more regarding these types of evidences is covered in this month’s Featured Resource.

In summary, both creation and evolution are worldview models that make claims which can potentially be supported by operational science, but not proven (because of the limited nature of operational science). While the creation worldview enjoys a great deal of support from operational science, the evolutionary worldview not only lacks support, but has a lot of evidence that is strongly and directly in opposition to it.

Author:  Jay Seegert  (Co-Founder & Principal Lecturer, Creation Education Center)