I did not want to write this article.\u00a0 Rather, I wish the need for me to write this article did not exist.\u00a0 As far as I am concerned, my life was going on just fine, albeit extremely busy.\u00a0 Having said that, let me admit that I believe that I needed to write this article, to help lift a growing burden off my heart.\u00a0 Hopefully, there is at least one other person out there who benefits besides me, and I pray ultimately that God receives greater glory for it.<\/p>\n
Though the target audience is explicitly Christian learners of science, the desired audience is all who may be curious about how the Christian faith intersects with science.\u00a0 Ever since Christ died, and rose again, there have been many who have tried to force God\u2019s truths into a faulty worldview.\u00a0 This is especially true in this modern age of science. \u00a0So, let this essay be at least a small step toward bringing the dialogue to its proper place, under the authority of God.<\/p>\n
What this Article Isn\u2019t \/ What It Is<\/b><\/p>\n
My approach in this article may be different than expected.\u00a0 Some of the arguments may be familiar due to the nature of the topics addressed.\u00a0 However, much is likely to seem out of place, perhaps odd and maybe even unscientific.\u00a0 That, in part, is due to my background.\u00a0 I am a chemist and educator by trade and by calling; I am not a licensed theologian, apologist, or biologist.<\/p>\n
In an effort to \u201cmake a difference in this world for Jesus Christ\u201d (Corban University\u2019s mission), this undertaking is intended to be bold.\u00a0 It has challenged me because it opens me up to criticism.\u00a0 However, it is God I am to serve, not man (Eph. 6:7).\u00a0 I wish to hear Him say, \u201cWell done, good and faithful servant\u201d (Matt. 25:23).\u00a0 So, while I do not wish to experience negative backlash typically experienced by those who venture into this realm, I am called to be courageous. \u00a0I will endeavor to speak \u201cthe truth in love\u201d (Eph. 4:15) as best as this imperfect creation can.<\/p>\n
This article could be considered a brief treatise.\u00a0 As such, some groundwork needs to be laid. First I will address my own premises, assumptions, and approach.\u00a0 Next I will explore the foundational context in which the arguments regarding creation and evolution are either encouraged or dismissed.\u00a0 The context includes worldviews, faith, and social pressures.\u00a0 After that I will present some of the arguments regarding evolution vs. creation, including arguments from both sides, looking at some strengths and weaknesses of each.\u00a0 The discussion is then extended to consider the conflict of these two worldviews and the ramifications of each side\u2019s stance. In addition, \u00a0Appendix A includes information about the origin of the universe, and Appendix B contains information about radiometric dating.Premise, Assumptions, and Approach<\/b><\/p>\n
The following premises, assumptions and approach are fairly fundamental and conservative. This is intentional.\u00a0 Reminder: This is not so much a debate as it is a\u00a0treatise<\/i>. \u00a0It is not my job to persuade you.\u00a0 It is the work of the Holy Spirit on your heart that does the persuading.\u00a0 I am simply presenting the truth as best I understand it, sowing seeds if you will.\u00a0 This is my act of obedience to a Divine Creator.<\/p>\n
Some points of discussion and debate on the topic of evolution versus creation are more fundamental than others.\u00a0 Instead of beginning with what I think are common stances and arguments, I would like to enter the discussion with the thought process I share with my students. I start with a broad brush statement under which everything else I say exists.\u00a0 I start with Paul. \u201cFor I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified\u201d (1 Cor. 2:2 ESV).\u00a0 I believe the context behind this statement is that prior to this Paul had been debating and stating his case to the Athenians with minimal effectiveness.\u00a0 After that, he decided not to try to debate his way to converting people to Christ.\u00a0 In similar form, then, I say the same.\u00a0 I state this truth and the reader can accept it or not.\u00a0 I may sow the seed, but I trust the Holy Spirit to work the field of the heart of the reader, to soften it, make it receptive to the truth.<\/p>\n
I have a relatively short set of \u201ctruth statements\u201d against which every piece of evidence is tested.\u00a0 If it goes against the statement, then either the evidence is in error, or the interpretation of what the evidence means is in error.\u00a0 The statements go something like this:\u00a0 As Christians, we believe that Christ rose from death for the purpose of restoring people to proper relationship to God.\u00a0 The relationship was broken when Adam sinned against God by disobeying Him.\u00a0 God created mankind through Adam and Eve, to live in perfect harmony with Him in Paradise.\u00a0 So, as it relates to the evolution\/creation discussion, if there is no creation, there is no fall and thus no need for restoration through the death and resurrection of Jesus; ergo, there is no basis for Christianity.\u00a0\u00a0 To expand on these truth statements a bit, I offer the following list of assumptions from which I am working.<\/p>\n
1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Truth exists and it is knowable
\n2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The mentioning of God refers to the God of the Bible
\n3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Bible is God\u2019s divine word to mankind, His creation
\n4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Bible is true and inerrant.\u00a0 It speaks directly to many issues, and to many issues what it says and means is clear (e.g. murder).\u00a0 There are many issues to which the Bible does not speak as directly or clearly (e.g., computer technology).\u00a0 On these issues, people are left to try to interpret the meaning.\u00a0 Since people make mistakes, it is important to acknowledge this and provide interpretations with appropriate humility.
\n5)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 God has provided evidence that He is the Creator throughout His creation, explicitly through His word and implicitly through His creation, (e.g., plants, animals, mountains).
\n6)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 God created all that exists for His good pleasure, His glory, and called it good.
\n7)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Man, whom he created to share life with, to walk with, disobeyed God and mankind thereafter suffered pain and death.\u00a0 However, even before man\u2019s betrayal, God made a plan to restore this relationship.\u00a0 That plan was through Jesus Christ.
\n8)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There exists an enemy to God.\u00a0 His name is Satan.\u00a0 He desires to destroy man and man\u2019s relationship with God.\u00a0 He is waging a war against God; this battle is a spiritual battle, but it affects every life in the physical world.
\n9)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jesus a real person, the person referred to in the Bible as God\u2019s only Son, who lived a blameless life, who died a sinner\u2019s death on a cross, who rose from the dead, who now sits at the right hand of God, who came to restore all people into proper relationship with God the Father.<\/p>\n
None of us have perfect knowledge.\u00a0 Only God knows it all.\u00a0 However, I have chosen to assume that God is correct and that any errors must be on the side of man.\u00a0 Someday we may understand these mysteries.<\/p>\n
I have tried to set out the premises and assumptions that influence my approach to the topic of evolution and creation.\u00a0 I understand that to non-believers, pretty much everything presented so far would be considered \u201cfoolishness\u201d (1 Cor. 2:14).\u00a0 I understand that, and if I were them, I would have the same logic and come to the same conclusion.\u00a0 I get that.\u00a0 I do not fault them for that.\u00a0 I am simply sharing the good news of creation to open eyes and hearts to the Creator\u2026 to show that without God (which is the premise of evolution), there is no purpose in life and that with God, a loving God, every person is loved, yea even cherished and for whom He has a specific purpose.<\/p>\n
Before we look at specific creation versus evolution questions, I want to explore the importance of a person\u2019s worldview and how worldview impacts our interpretation of data.<\/p>\n
Foundation and Context \u2013 Worldviews<\/b><\/p>\n
Worldview drives the interpretation of the information and data below.\u00a0 One\u2019s worldview (or\u00a0Weltanschauungen<\/i>),[1]<\/a>\u00a0the way one sees and understands the world, is the filter through which all new information is interpreted and brought into alignment.\u00a0 Worldview as a concept speaks to the values, beliefs and faith upon which people make sense of their lives and their role in the world.\u00a0 As a result, at one level, one can say every person has his or her own belief system.\u00a0 Though each person may have a unique set of beliefs, it is also true that people tend to group together with those of similar worldviews.\u00a0 The worldviews of two groups can be diametrically opposite each other, explaining how two people can see the same set of data, yet interpret it differently.<\/p>\n It is vital to understand that at the core of each person\u2019s worldview, no matter what worldview they may hold, is faith–a trust based on something beyond the senses.\u00a0 In this regard atheism and agnosticism are belief systems just as Christianity.\u00a0 They, too, have assumptions and a faith-dependent nature at their core.\u00a0 It is also helpful to understand that an individual\u2019s worldview is constantly being tested and possibly refined, especially in matters regarding self-identity.<\/p>\n People are curious creations.\u00a0 It is normal for people to be curious about their world and their role in it.\u00a0 \u201cWho am I?\u00a0 Where did I come from?\u00a0 What is my purpose in life?\u201d\u00a0 These are questions that one\u2019s worldview helps to answer.\u00a0 People\u2019s faith therein serves to provide understanding, stability, and hopefully peace in their lives.\u00a0 It is no wonder that heated and emotional discussions and debates occur between people of significantly different worldviews, as these may challenge the foundation of their understanding of their world and existence, thus unsettling their sense of identity.\u00a0 More often than not, when people\u2019s worldviews are threatened, they will do what they need to do to protect themselves.\u00a0 They may attack the opposing view or they may retreat from further discourse.\u00a0 Sometimes, they may carefully listen and consider changing or adjusting their own worldview.\u00a0 However, this is more easily accomplished if they are not feeling threatened.<\/p>\n Many worldviews can coexist with each other quite well.\u00a0 Some like to think they can, but cannot.\u00a0 So, keeping the importance of worldview in mind, let\u2019s look at some of the specific issues involved in the evolution versus creation debate.<\/p>\n Origins: Evolution vs. Creation<\/b><\/p>\n The fundamental premise behind the theory of evolution is that ultimately the origin of life arose from random events and is therefore devoid of a Creator and subsequently purposeless, except perhaps to simply pass on genetic information.\u00a0 It is perfectly logical for those who hold to an evolutionary belief to think that those who are Christian (or have faith in any religion) are basically just trying to make themselves feel better.\u00a0 Well, I admit, I do feel better having Christ as my Savior, but that does not mean it is not true.<\/p>\n Some non-Creator evolutionists might say, \u201cProve to me that God exists!\u201d\u00a0 While that may seem to be an attack–in fact it might actually\u00a0be<\/i>\u00a0an attack–it is, on another level, a perfectly reasonable and logical challenge.\u00a0 People are curious and desire to understand who they are, where they come from and why they exist.\u00a0 Ironically, if the question is turned around, they would not be able to provide the answer.\u00a0 For example, \u201cProve to me that life spontaneously generated randomly.\u201d\u00a0 Though scientists have tried, it has never been done.\u00a0 The standard response is, \u201cAll you need is time.\u201d\u00a0 Their premise is that the universe is billions of years old.\u00a0 To which I would say, there simply is not and never will be enough time for life to randomly and spontaneously generate.\u00a0 It is statistically a non-self-starter.\u00a0 The odds are simply stacked too much against it, even under the most ideal set of conditions of temperature, pressure, and ingredients.\u00a0 It would be even more difficult for life to spontaneously generate under the high energy, radiation, and chaotic environment of most of the universe.<\/p>\n The laws of the universe are against it too.\u00a0 The trend in the universe is toward entropy. \u00a0Even the odds of a very simple hypothetical case of the molecules of sugar dissolved in a cup of tea coalescing into a sugar cube are essentially zero. The odds quickly become less likely the more complicated the system.\u00a0\u00a0 Even if there is a local decrease in entropy, it cannot last long.\u00a0 Life is a constant struggle against entropy.\u00a0 When life is over, entropy quickly takes over.\u00a0 So, if entropy dominates, how could life start itself?\u00a0 The answer is simple: it cannot.<\/p>\n In some sense, if life cannot get started randomly, then the argument is already over.\u00a0 However, let\u2019s say that some self-replicating molecules got started.\u00a0 Some use self-replicating RNA as a foundation from which the rest of evolution progressed.\u00a0 Even at this point, however, the arguments provided before–odds and entropy–make it impossible.\u00a0 There are too many steps and the environment is too hazardous.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at this from another vantage\u2014the concept of irreducible complexity.\u00a0 \u00a0There are some organisms that have components that even in their simplest state are quite complex and could not have come about randomly.\u00a0 The human eye has been used as an example of an irreducibly complex structure.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 In order to see, there must be a lens, a retina, a cornea, etc. These must all come into being at the same time to function properly.\u00a0 The eye will not work if any single component is missing.\u00a0 The odds against the random assembly of the critical components are once again nigh impossible.\u00a0 The implication is that eyes must have been \u201cdesigned,\u201d which necessarily points to a creator.\u00a0 Of course, I am not using this particular example as an argument for a Creator.\u00a0 I have already stated that my premise is that there is a Creator.\u00a0 I am, however, using this as example against random generation of life, aka evolution.<\/p>\n There are many other subtopics and points argued and debated.\u00a0 Again, the reader is encouraged to research those as compelled to do so.\u00a0 For more irreducible complexity, investigate rotary motors in the bacterium flagellum,[3]<\/a>\u00a0or a brief article on the probability of life.[4]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0I, however, would like to bring worldview philosophy back into this discussion to demonstrate how worldview is so foundational.<\/p>\n One who believes in evolution might bring in data and statistics to support evolutionary relationships.\u00a0 For example, humans are genetically more similar to monkeys than to dolphins; therefore humans are more closely related to monkeys evolutionarily.\u00a0 Based on this, it could be said, humans come from apes.\u00a0 This is the logical conclusion derived from the evolutionary worldview lens.\u00a0 However, the same data, viewed through a creation worldview lens might be explained in a radically different way.\u00a0 Of course the genetic makeup is very close between apes and humans; it is logical and consistent with creation.\u00a0 First of all, all organisms are built from the same building blocks, DNA.\u00a0 Since the physical structure of an ape is quite similar to that of a human, then naturally its DNA (building blocks) will closely match.<\/p>\n The evolutionist might respond as follows: \u201cBut the DNA is not just similar; it\u2019s almost identical at a 98.5% match.\u201d\u00a0 Some creationist might counter with, \u201cThe latest data puts it at about 95% match.\u201d\u00a0 I do not have a problem with either of these numbers.\u00a0 According to the creation worldview lens I mentioned, a high percent match is perfectly reasonable, even expected.\u00a0 I would say that there is a lot of critical\/fundamental difference in that 1.5-5%.\u00a0 Let me use an example that may or may not be oversimplified.\u00a0 If I could make a model of a chimpanzee from 9,500 lego pieces, I could probably make a model of a human with 10,000 of the same pieces.\u00a0 I just need the right 500 more pieces.<\/p>\n It is the worldview that drives the interpretation of the information and data.\u00a0 If you know the worldview of a person in this discussion, then you can generally predict where he or she is going to land on any of the topics.\u00a0 So, it is important to know and understand your own worldview first, and then it is helpful to understand the worldview of the other person in the discussion.<\/p>\n Christian Worldview<\/b><\/p>\n On that note, I would like to look at the Christian worldview lens and say a few things that I do not think most Christians say or even think about when they approach this discussion. \u00a0If the God of the Bible is true, then He is omnipotent.\u00a0 He created the universe and everything in it.\u00a0 His Son, Jesus, rose from the grave, conquering even death!\u00a0 Then nothing, absolutely nothing is impossible for Him.\u00a0 Then anything is possible for Him.\u00a0 This means, in regard to this topic, that if there is something that seems strange, not likely, or impossible to us, that is simply our own limited understanding or beliefs getting in the way.<\/p>\n Perhaps, my mentioning this is more to address fellow Christians than non-believers. \u00a0\u00a0For example, there is a prevailing trend for Christians to accommodate creation models that parallel evolution.\u00a0 This may include significant concessions, such as viewing Adam and Eve as archetypal representations of man rather than as literal people.\u00a0 As I admitted up front, I am not smart enough to know the answers to everything.\u00a0 I was not there at creation.\u00a0 I was not even around at the birth of my own country, which is a very young country.\u00a0 I also have not spent countless hours researching and trying to determine whether Adam and Eve were literal people or figurative.\u00a0 However, I stand by my premises and truth statements.\u00a0 I also challenge my fellow Christians to open their minds to the possibilities that exist with an omnipotent God. \u00a0Even if the evidence appears to support an old age earth or universe, is it not possible that appearances not line up with our interpretation?\u00a0 Who am I to put constraints on God?<\/p>\n You may notice that I did not measure the success of this discussion using the devices used by evolutionists, for example Occam\u2019s razor.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 That in some sense would be playing by their rules.\u00a0 In so doing, one might be giving too much merit to their strategy.\u00a0 I do not need to do that.\u00a0 Actually, I do not have a problem with the tool.\u00a0 I believe the same tool could be used in support of creation.\u00a0 As with tools, however, their power comes not from the tools themselves but from the hands that wield them.\u00a0 Remember, I am not arguing so much as presenting the Good News through this topic both to non-believers and to believers who may have forgotten how big their God is.<\/p>\n Lastly, I would like to address another area that I do not see discussed much–the ramifications of these two worldview positions.\u00a0 Though on the individual and personal level we may coexist and get along peacefully at this moment, there are distinctly different logical trajectories and termini both individually and societally. \u00a0Though this topic is by itself larger than this article, I will attempt to at least introduce it for the reader\u2019s consideration.<\/p>\n A society based on the creation worldview believes that God is good, man has fallen, Jesus has come to restore, God loves all people, all people are valuable, and we are to show love to all people. \u00a0Just using these premises, one can predict the nature of this kind of society.\u00a0 It is the kind of society that can build a country without a king, with citizens that have freedoms never before shared, that prospers to become the envy of the word, where nations are blessed through its generosity and strength.<\/p>\n A society based on an evolutionary worldview believes there is no god, except perhaps that man is God, where man can design society in his image, where laws are used to shape and dictate society, where power is king and God is a threat to that power, where increasing one\u2019s self comes at the expense of others, but that does not matter because other peoples\u2019 lives do not matter (since life is random and purposeless).\u00a0 Life is controlled cradle to grave.\u00a0 Abortions and euthanasia are the norm.\u00a0 Technology keeps up with the pace of greed and power\u2026 leading to wars, genocide, and self-inflicted extinction. \u00a0One has but to pay attention to recent years and decades to see the trend of this country to see how it correlates to the shift in worldview.<\/p>\n Going Forward<\/b><\/p>\n The topic of origins is obviously important for individuals to wrestle with, and come to terms with, in their own faith journey, but we are wise to remember along the way that this is a volatile area of inquiry.\u00a0 The Enemy is strong in this area.\u00a0 A quick search for online information and dialogue on this topic may surprise, confuse, and overwhelm the unprepared.\u00a0 Remember, there is a real and serious spiritual war being waged, and this topic is on the front lines of the battle.\u00a0 It is best to come ready, and we should remember that we are to speak the truth in love, but sometimes the truth is the hardest thing to say or hear, such as the following: regarding the knowledge of God\u2019s existence, all are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)<\/p>\n As with all discussions and debates, it takes time and effort to sort through and discard the \u00a0\u00a0irrelevant and distracting information and emerge with the critical material. The field is too broad for me to be an expert in all areas and for me to provide an exhaustive list of where to start, but there is no shortage of material available.\u00a0 I would suggest starting with a topic that is most compelling for you.\u00a0 There are many resources whose stance is explicitly and intentionally against the creationist worldview.\u00a0 So those resources are readily available, and worthy of the time you take to understand their stances, rationale, arguments, etc.\u00a0 The resources supporting a creationist worldview are also available.\u00a0 A decent place to start on virtually any creation related topic is answersingenesis.org.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n More importantly it is vital to keep immersed in the Bible, strengthening your knowledge and wisdom with its content.\u00a0 Everything is tested against it.\u00a0 Some answers may be easy and straight forward, while others may not be directly discernible.\u00a0 However, nothing should stand that stands in clear conflict with it.<\/p>\n Stand strong.\u00a0 These times are challenging. \u201cYou will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved\u201d (Matt. 10:22 NIV). The conservative worldview is under constant and increasing attack in all areas of life. \u00a0Take heart.<\/p>\n Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, \u00a0because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (James 1:2-4 NIV)<\/p>\n Be aware that society is drifting away from the moorings of God and His truths.\u00a0 Be wary of yourself, too, so as not to drift away. \u00a0The enemy is cunning, but we are called to be more so.\u00a0 \u201cI am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves\u201d (Matt. 10:16 NIV).\u00a0 Remember that you are not alone.\u00a0 Though the current battles may be difficult and painful, the victory is already won.\u00a0 God created the world and called it good.\u00a0 Let us help Him keep it that way.<\/p>\n Hopefully, readers have been both challenged and blessed by my struggling efforts.\u00a0 There are certainly many related areas not covered, like micro and macroevolution, natural selection, etc.\u00a0 I wish I were better versed to offer more.\u00a0 However, at this moment, I must allow the work to stand on its own merits.\u00a0 I hope and pray that each reader gets at least one good thing out of reading my arguments and testimony.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Appendix A:\u00a0 Origin of the Universe<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Appendix B:\u00a0 Radiometric Dating<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0Philosophical term representing a comprehensive conception of the world especially from a specific standpoint. quantities (Merriam-Webster online dictionary. http:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a>\u00a0Michael J. Behe,\u00a0Darwin\u2019s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution<\/i>, New York: The Free Press, 1997<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a>\u00a0Jonathan M, \u201cThe Bacterial Flagellum \u2013 Truly An Engineering Marvel!,\u201d\u00a0Uncommon Descent,<\/i>\u00a0(Dec. 24, 2010):\u00a0http:\/\/www.uncommondescent.com\/intelligent-design\/the-bacterial-flagellum-truly-an-engineering-marvel\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0Dominic Stratham, \u201cHawking claims that life can happen by chance,\u201d\u00a0Creation Magazine<\/i>, (Oct. 13, 2010): http:\/\/creation.com\/hawking-aliens-life-by-chance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a>\u00a0A scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities (Merriam-Webster online dictionary.\u00a0http:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0\u201cArticle Archives,\u201d Answers in Genesis, accessed September 12, 2013, http:\/\/www.answersingenesis.org\/get-answers\/daily-articles.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a>\u00a0Gerald Rau,\u00a0Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything.\u00a0<\/i>Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [8]<\/a>\u00a0\u201cRadiation and Life\u201d World Nuclear Association, December 2012, http:\/\/www.world-nuclear.org\/info\/Safety-and-Security\/Radiation-and-Health\/Radiation-and-Life\/, Figure in \u201cHalf-life\u201d section.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a>\u00a0Dan Stober, \u201cThe strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements,\u201d\u00a0Stanford Report<\/i>, August 23, 2010, http:\/\/news.stanford.edu\/news\/2010\/august\/sun-082310.html.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I did not want to write this article.\u00a0 Rather, I wish the need for me to write this article did not exist.\u00a0 As far as I am concerned, my life was going on just fine, albeit extremely busy.\u00a0 Having said … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
\n