Taking Evolution on Faith

There are religious people who accept evolution. Not enough of them. But many of them.

Art is one example. He accepted evolution even after he became a Born-Again Baptist. In college, though, he realized he was making the mistake of taking it on faith. It took a more scientifically-versed friend to fully explain the implications of the theory.

Very cool story. In the excerpt below, he talks about a discussion he had with this friend.

Anyway, back to second year college. Since we were into intellectual intercourse more than anything else, it was inevitable that we’d bump into evolution as a topic in one of our bus rides. And since I was pro-evolution, I thought we’d see eye to eye on all levels.

“There’s really nothing different between us and apes,” she said with her trademark cool candor. “Or between us and cockroaches, for that matter.”

Something twitched in me. Denial. Outrage. The need to feel special. Something like that.

“No, wait. It can’t be that simple,” I objected. “We’re way different from all those other animals!”

“Are we really?,” she challenged.

“Yes! We can think! We’re creative! We can plan!” We have a soul, I would have said, except that she was an Atheist.

“It’s incremental selection, that’s all,” she said in her matter-of-fact way. “Somewhere along the line, we were just fortunate to have developed more complex brains and social structures. But other than that, we’re all alike. We and all the other animals.”

It was then that I realized how little analysis went into my thinking process. I blindly accepted Evolution without bothering to think about all of its implications. I was an Evolutionist who believed in the existence of a soul. Wasn’t there a contradiction there somewhere?I was neither here nor there. I was a fence-sitter. Ugh…

Art is now trying to diffuse the tension of opposites between being no different from other creatures and being “special.”

Where should he go from here?


[tags]atheist, atheism, creationism, science[/tags]

  • http://www.tuibguy.com Mike Haubrich, FCD

    I think that we are special, if not a “special creation.” We are the first products of evolution to be able to develop things like religion, philosophy, science, technology and all of the other cognitive abilities that lead us to questions such as Art has. I don’t need to believe that we are unique in creation in order to feel like we are unique in our current (as of the last 100,000 years) state.

    I’m happy to be human. I’m proud to be human. But I am also amazed that we share the same common ancestor as all of the other life on this planet.

  • Larry Huffman

    Well…to begin with, I also did this tight-wire act while I was a believer. It was painful to try to be accepting of those things I thought science had explained, while still being true to my faith. I like the term ‘accepting evolution on faith’ as that is just what I did. Since I believed god was the creator, I just accepted evolution as the tool god used, sort of…

    …that is…until I began to look at it critically (which i not easy to get a fundamentalist to do, let me tell you…lol). Once I did, as Art found in his conversation with his friend…it is almost impossible to believe both once you begin to look at the details.

    Those two premises are opposites and they just do not co-habitate in the mind of someone who wants to be intellectually honest with themselves. For me that was the trick. I grew more and more to understand that one side of my views could not mesh with the other. I had to make a determination between facts that support a theory…or ancient writings that, while I held them to be true and perfect, the scientific world had doubts about. So, what did i do? I inserting my fingers firmly in my ears, began singing “LA LA LA” as loud as I could and hoped the scientific view would go away.

    Of course, it did not…and a few years later, my faith flew out the window…fully because of doctrinal issues. But…once I found myself without religion, I carefully began to look into evolution (among other scientific premises that I had carefully avoided), and in truth, nature. Suddely life was more amazing and beautiful than it had ever been. Evolution and the knowledge that life has built upon itself over and over to achieve what it has…and it will continue to do so…these realizations that were completely counter to my spiritual views, opened my eyes.

    The opposites that are troubling Art, also troubled me, when I tried to maintain both of them. When I found myself with just one of them, it was evolution…and the idea that I somehow thought there was another ‘truth’ made the comparison that I had made (and that Art is making now) seem silly and desperate to me. I realized that I was on the right path learning about evolution…but i was not at all on track by holding onto ancient religious dogma that collapsed under the very findings of science.

    One thing to keep in mind….not only are the theories of evolution vs creation opposites…but what constitutes proof for each are also opposites. Proof for evolution is contained in the fossil record, study after study, carbon dating, etc. Proof for creation is not to be found, and the supporters of the belief claim you cannot have proof…it is even wrong to want it.

  • http://blog.myspace.com/johnpritzlaff John Pritzlaff

    In my opinion it’s reasonable to think that we similar to all other animals while also thinking we are “special”, although I don’t think this is true because I want to be special, but because I think it’s true based on the evidence. However, I wouldn’t use the word special. It’s just that we are animals that reached a plateau that allowed us to do different things from all other animals. But we are still very similar to all other animals in many ways.

    So yeah, something of a false dichotomy.

    “Somewhere along the line, we were just fortunate to have developed more complex brains and social structures. But other than that, we’re all alike. We and all the other animals.”

    We are all alike, except for the fact that we have more complex brains and social structures than all the other species, as well as many other traits that are unique to humans. That does make us slightly special in a way. There’s nothing anthropocentric about thinking this (one reason being that there are many other species that are slightly special in their own way).

    False dichotomy.

  • http://blog.myspace.com/johnpritzlaff John Pritzlaff

    I agree with Mike.

  • MercuryBlue

    We’re animals with big brains, opposable thumbs, and cigarette lighters. That’s all that makes us special. Unless one defines the sum total of one’s neuron firings as one’s soul, but then we’re still not special because animals have that too.

  • Jennifer M

    Let’s be nice here. Immediately thinking we’ll die and passout of existence is very depressing for a religous person. How about encouraging him to go to a different church. Maybe he could try a church that supports evolution, creationism, Jesus and the afterlife. The Unity Church does. And yes, that is the church I go to. I don’t understand why Art has a problem with thinking that all life is special. You can think creatures go to the otherside as well. We do.

  • http://emergingpensees.com Mike Clawson

    Art should pick up a copy of this book. It’s an excellent account of two friends (a pastor and a paleontologist) who both went from being young earth creationists to theistic evolutionists. It might help him reconcile some of his questions and see that there really need not be any contradiction between his faith and science.

  • http://emergingpensees.com Mike Clawson

    There are religious people who accept evolution. Not enough of them. But many of them.

    Tens of millions actually. The Catholic Church, pretty much any mainline Protestant denomination (e.g. Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, etc.), and even a significant handful of evangelicals (my alma mater, Wheaton College for example) have no problem at all embracing evolutionary theory and see no contradiction between it and their faith.

  • http://toomanytribbles.blogspot.com/ toomanytribbles

    we are special. we’re the first members of this vast family of beings to begin to understand ourselves. we’re the first to be able to call a tree ‘cousin’.

  • Siamang

    If you ignore the differences, we’re exactly the same.

    I see this kind of reductionist thinking within creationists and their moralizing anti-evolutionist cohorts. Here’s how the thinking goes:

    If we’re “just animals”, then we have no morals.
    If our bodies are “just chemicals”, then we should be free to murder each other with impunity.

    We could take that thinking all the way to the Pentagon officer in Richard Dawkins’ book who so convinced himself that if atoms were mostly empty space, he should be able to walk through walls.

    Here is the error: In order to understand the central concepts of the fields of evolutionary biology, biochemistry and atomic theory, respectively, the person attempting to understand them has simplified them to the point of breaking them.

    Einstein said “A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” These people simplify these theories too far, and in an attempt to understand them, understand nothing. Their understanding is a broken child’s toy that was once bore the vague shape of a powerful scientific theory that each was based on.

    We are no different from any of the other animals, if you ignore all the ways that we ARE different.

    Yes, our bodies are “just chemistry”… providing you ignore the fact that everything in the world IS “just” chemistry. The most magnificent and the most mundane, are built upon the wonderwork of the atom. To be able to use chemistry to understand life is NOT to reduce it, but rather to illuminate it! And people who think it’s a reduction are blind to the beauty of life itself. To them, the Mona Lisa must be “just paint” and all the work of Beethoven is “just air.” If people think that chemistry reduces life to “just chemicals” give them a choice, eat chocolate or eat shit… after all, they’re both “just chemicals!”

    They ignore the differences in order to promote the view that understanding something is the same as saying there is no difference between chocolate and shit. Well, yes, if you ignore the differences, they’re exactly the same. But WHY would you ignore the differences? Why is understanding the difference the same as ignoring the difference?

    These people tilt at knowledge and understanding, and call it a foe. I’d say to Art to not make their mistake. Don’t reduce evolution to the point where all it can make are dumb animals… all alike. Evolution doesn’t do that anyway. It’s finding novel solutions, and lucky us, we’re quite a novelty. Do not discard what makes us wonderful and unique in the known universe merely because the same process that made us made the cockroach.

    Know the difference between chocolate and shit. Don’t say they’re the same thing just because they’re both the product of organic chemistry.

  • Vicki Baker

    To them, the Mona Lisa must be “just paint” and all the work of Beethoven is “just air.” If people think that chemistry reduces life to “just chemicals” give them a choice, eat chocolate or eat shit… after all, they’re both “just chemicals!

    Very well said!

  • Caroline

    I’m in biology in school right now. I always find it strange how we’re taught evolution kind of things (just general, like the phylum and how some animals are more evolved then others). I have Christian friends who claim to believe in creationism. Yet have no problem believing what we’re taught in science? Do they not realize that what they believe doesn’t fit with what they’re taught in science?

    That seems like a tough line to balance on. Do you believe what your parents/priest/Sunday school teacher taught you about God creating everything, or do you believe your science teacher and what all the text books say? Haha, I’m glad I don’t have to choose!

  • Lloyd

    There is no such thing as a “friendly atheist.” All atheists have but one goal, to corrupt the mind of children in the schools.

    Have you heard about this case? Great answer from the judge!

    In Florida , an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.

    The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, ‘Case dismissed!’

    The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, ‘Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other o bserva nces. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah…yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!’

    The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, ‘Obviously your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his own atheists’ holiday!’

    The lawyer pompously said, ‘Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?’

    The judge said, ‘Well it comes every year on exactly the same date—April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as ‘April Fools Day,’ consider that Psalm 14:1 states, ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.’ Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by scripture, he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday! Now have a good day and get out of my courtroom!!

    Way to go, Judge! AMEN

  • MercuryBlue

    Lloyd: Consider that atheists do not take the Bible as holy writ. Why, then, should atheists have a party celebrating a facet of their beliefs on a date dictated in part by the Bible?

    That judge—if the story is not apocryphal—needs to be booted off the bench for violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

  • Gary

    That judge—if the story is not apocryphal—needs to be booted off the bench for violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

    The story is apocryphal, and is all over the Internet. Lloyd just did a cut-and-paste from some site or other (for example, this one: http://lifewithlisaann.blogspot.com/2008/03/court-sets-atheists-holiday.html)

    See also http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/atheistholiday.htm.

    Lloyd is either a troll, or living proof of Lincoln’s observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

  • Richard Wade

    Lloyd, assuming you are a Christian, you should be careful not to bear false witness. The story you have told, which has been knocking around the internet for quite some time is a work of fiction. It is a lie. It never happened. No record of any court case anywhere has ever been found to substantiate the story. You can check it out here:

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/atheistholiday.htm

    It appears that whoever was the author of the story wrote it as a mocking joke, but you have repeated it as if it was true.

    If you repeat a story that you know to be false, that is bearing false witness, breaking one of the Ten Commandments. If you repeat a story that you have not put any effort into finding out whether it is true or false, that is at least negligence, and puts you on the edge of bearing false witness. Your lack of research does not get you entirely off the hook.

    Lloyd, believing whatever you are told and repeating it should not be the way you go through life, whether it’s about your religion or some hostile, bigoted rumor. If you want to represent Christians in a good light, then clean up your own act and check things out before you bear false witness. Naively believing rumors and repeating them is the act of a fool, so perhaps you should look to your own foolishness.

  • http://blog.myspace.com/johnpritzlaff John Pritzlaff

    Very good responses to Lloyd, although I doubt he’ll ever read them. He’s probably off at some other atheist site pasting his drivel. But still, wonderful responses, and maybe he’ll read them. Certainly other people like him will!

  • Richard Wade

    Hmm. I don’t know why Gary’s link to Truth or Fiction (dot) com seems to not work but mine does. Anyway, his other link works fine.

  • Gary

    Here’s another interesting link (hope this one works):

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/atheist.asp

  • http://atheists.meetup.com/531 benjdm

    Where should he go from here?

    Wherever his best thinking leads him, of course.

  • http://ohthethinksyoucanthink.blogspot.com Linda

    Siamang,

    I must say…. I can listen to you ramble for hours. :) I can visualize everything you say. You are an artist.

    Just thought I’d point that out, in case no one else noticed…

  • http://www.bernerbits.com Derek

    Richard, I’d just like to point out that in the proper context, “bearing false witness” refers to the act of willfully incriminating another person with a lie, and not lying in general (similarly, “taking the Lord’s name in vain” refers to committing perjury and breaking oaths, not cussing). Honestly, I don’t get the rationale behind the “expanded version” of the Ten Commandments that most conservative churches preach but it really is out of context. I’m not sure that this invalidates any of what you’re saying, however.

  • Richard Wade

    Thank you, Derek, I’ll keep that in mind the next time (and this hasn’t been the first time) that I have to refute this very story or similar slanders. I’ll just use the term “lie” and put that at the person’s feet. Probably have a better effect anyway.

  • Jennifer M

    Caroline,

    There’s one thing you’re forgetting about. Not all Christians take the bible literally. And for the ones that do, none of them interpret it in exactly the same way. Furthermore, not all atheists agree with every single detail that’s taught on evolution. You’ll realize this when you’re older.

  • Siamang

    Linda wrote:

    I must say…. I can listen to you ramble for hours.

    Thanks. I try to keep my posts more brief than that. But thanks!

  • Awesomesauce

    I know that many theists believe in evolution, but I wonder how many actually understand the contradiction. I sure didn’t for a long time as I too was “taking evolution on faith.”

    The dissonance isn’t merely some contraindication or vague interpretation in the scripture. St. Aquinas did wonders in solving that problem.

    No, the problem is that- as a theist- one claims that religion was a product of divine revelation. If one were to accept this, then how- at the same time- can one also accept that religion evolved merely as a social construct amongst our primate ancestors?

    Since the first apes began crafting statues and burying their dead group members (some still do) religion has been evolving; and as our ancestors developed and changed, so did their beliefs.

    Over time, it’s not surprising that we began to “get good” at this religion thing. We even got to the point where we could adapt our religions as we ourselves adapted to fit in the new environment. One only has to look at missionary work in South Africa to see a present-day example of one religion stretching and adapting to fit (and overtake) it’s new social environment.

    Or, one can rewind a few years to witness the melding of the christian’s Jesus as the embodiment of the mighty Gitchi Manitu during fur trades in pre-provincial Canada. We can even travel further to watch Zen Buddhism arise as it appealed more to the Dao/Taoists of the area than the original form.

    I was not able to concurrently understand the evolution of religion and still remain a theist. More power to you if you can figure this one out as I certainly failed.

  • Awesomesauce

    Here’s a good link to read an evolutionary explanation of the existence of religions.

  • MercuryBlue

    Awesomesauce: My roommate, who is a conservative Catholic, reconciles it for herself by saying God waited until humans had the capacity to imagine gods, then started revealing himself to certain of those who had doubts about the gods their parents told them about.

  • Jennifer M

    Awesomesauce,
    The Urantia Book?! I don’t know if it’s right or wrong but one thing for sure, you might want to start with a different source.

  • Spurs Fan

    Somewhere along the line, we were just fortunate to have developed more complex brains and social structures.

    Hmmm. I guess we’re fortunate enough. Other animals, however, seem very happy and content sometimes and not so content at other times…kind of like us.

    Maybe since we can actually understand what fortunate means, then by definition, we are fortunate. But I can also see the “ingorance is bliss” argument. Do all animals have to grapple with pain they way we have to?

  • Awesomesauce

    Awesomesauce,
    The Urantia Book?! I don’t know if it’s right or wrong but one thing for sure, you might want to start with a different source.

    Why?

  • cipher

    even a significant handful of evangelicals (my alma mater, Wheaton College for example) have no problem at all embracing evolutionary theory and see no contradiction between it and their faith.

    Mike,

    Several years ago, I watched the PBS series on evolution. One of the programs featured Wheaton. There was a professor who believed in evolution, but he had another professor come in to teach it (I think he was a geologist and considered himself unqualified). The thing is – if I remember correctly, the visiting professor taught at a secular university. I think the implication was that no one in the Biology Dept. at Wheaton was qualified, or perhaps they were afraid or weren’t allowed to. Am I remembering this at all accurately?

  • Richard Wade

    I think the implication was that no one in the Biology Dept. at Wheaton was qualified, or perhaps they were afraid or weren’t allowed to.

    Mike, that situation at Wheaton could make a great sketch:

    Prof. Trask: “Good morning, students, I want to introduce my friend and colleague from the University of Illinois, Professor Baker. He is going to assist me today in teaching you the theory of…”
    Prof. Baker: “evolution.”
    Prof. Trask: “You see class, there is a conflict here at Wheaton about faculty members teaching about…”
    Prof. Baker: “evolution,”
    Prof. Trask: “…so I am going to deliver the lecture, but Professor Baker here will say the words…”
    Prof. Baker: “evolution, natural selection, Charles Darwin,”
    Prof. Trask: “…and other terms that I am not entirely at liberty to utter. In that way I am technically not teaching you about these things. So let’s begin with a brief history of the theory of…”
    Prof. Baker: “evolution,”
    Prof. Trask: “and it’s most famous founder,…”
    Prof. Baker: “Charles Darwin.”
    Prof. Trask: “In 1831 the HMS Beagle set sail from……..”

    By this time the students have either dissolved into helpless hilarity, become catatonic in open-mouthed disbelief or have simply gotten up and left.

  • Jennifer M

    Awesomesauce,

    Why did you pick this source? Were you just looking for a complicated explanation? Because if you were this would be it. Given your not looking for a book with scientific credentials why don’t you try the Celestine Prophecy? Even if you don’t believe what it has to say it’s still a cool book and much easier to understand than Urantia.

  • Jennifer M

    Cipher, Richard,

    Why are you two picking on Mike like this? We’re trying to give Art the option of remaining a theist if that’s what he wants. It’s kind of sad to lose your faith. You know what I mean. By the way Mike, thanks for the book recommendation. I will definitely be reading it and Awesomesauce, why don’t you join me?

  • Awesomesauce

    Awesomesauce, why don’t you join me?

    Alas, I’m illiterate :(

    Tell you the truth, I was being lazy and simply wanted a quick result from a google search. I barely skimmed over the excerpt to see if it fit with the main point.

    Apparently it did but was anecdotal?

  • MercuryBlue

    The written phrase “I’m illiterate” is one of those that demonstrates its own falsehood.

  • Awesomesauce

    The written phrase “I’m illiterate” is one of those that demonstrates its own falsehood.

    I love you… and so does Jesus.

  • MercuryBlue

    Jesus can go jump in a lake.

    (Yeshua ben Mariam was a pretty cool guy, mind.)

  • Richard Wade

    Jennifer M, you asked:

    Why are you two picking on Mike like this? We’re trying to give Art the option of remaining a theist if that’s what he wants. It’s kind of sad to lose your faith. You know what I mean.

    I’m not picking on Mike. I expect that Mike finds the actual situation at Wheaton almost as ridiculous as the parody I wrote. He usually enjoys my send-ups of absurd situations.

    As for Art, well as the saying goes, “Art imitates life.” He’s a big boy, he’ll figure out whatever adjustment is right for him. Millions of people have. He may “lose his faith” entirely or just some part that doesn’t fit for him. If losing one’s faith is sad, then in Art’s case I think it’s sad in the way it’s sad when a child loses interest in a favorite toy but starts showing more interest in interacting with other kids. There will be new horizons to explore and new meanings for him to invent for his life. His need to be “special” seems to be just a little self-centered, wanting his specialness to be intrinsic, built in in the form of a soul. He may yet build his own specialness by developing more interest in other people and in making a positive difference in the world around him through his interactions with others.

  • Gary

    Jesus can go jump in a lake.

    He’d bounce off.

  • http://emergingpensees.com Mike Clawson

    Mike,

    Several years ago, I watched the PBS series on evolution. One of the programs featured Wheaton. There was a professor who believed in evolution, but he had another professor come in to teach it (I think he was a geologist and considered himself unqualified). The thing is – if I remember correctly, the visiting professor taught at a secular university. I think the implication was that no one in the Biology Dept. at Wheaton was qualified, or perhaps they were afraid or weren’t allowed to. Am I remembering this at all accurately?

    cipher, I was a student at Wheaton when they filmed that documentary, and I’m actually in it a couple of times (very briefly). I don’t recall the scene you’re referring too, but I’m pretty sure that you’re remembering it incorrectly as I know for a fact that there are plenty of science profs there who are qualified to teach evolution. Not only am I personal friends with some of them, but for one of my science requirements as an undergrad I took the “Theories of Origins” class which was team taught by profs from the astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, anthropology, and theology departments. Each of the profs was fully qualified in their field and all were theistic evolutionists. Evolution was taught without hesitation and it is certainly allowed and encouraged by the college as a whole.

    In fact, some of my science prof friends were rather annoyed by the documentary because it tried to portray it as if there was more controversy about evolution than there actually is at Wheaton, or as if its acceptance of it is some kind of new development when in fact Wheaton has been teaching evolution for decades.

  • cipher

    I think I’ll get the DVD out of the library and watch it again. Now I’m wondering what it is I actually saw.

    I was told the same thing recently by a biology prof at Calvin – they’re theistic evolutionists and are impatient with proponents of ID. The one who told me this supposedly is friendly with PZ Meyers.

    I do remember that they interviewed the family of a boy who was starting Wheaton. His mother told them that one of her friends warned her not to send him to Wheaton, as he’d lose his faith there!

  • http://ohthethinksyoucanthink.blogspot.com Linda

    Jesus can go jump in a lake.

    He actually did. And walked on it! ;-)

    I do remember that they interviewed the family of a boy who was starting Wheaton. His mother told them that one of her friends warned her not to send him to Wheaton, as he’d lose his faith there!

    You hear that a lot. It’s the “Do not go outside, or you will become a heathen” mentality. I recently had lunch with some people where one person asked about a private high school, and the other said, “It’s only Christian in name, and they have Muslims there. Find another good Christian school.” As others listened to this with horror and disgust written all over their faces, I remember wondering, “What are they so afraid of?”

    I am ashamed to say that all I could do was look down at my plate and finish my sandwich. Then I changed the subject.

  • http://emergingpensees.com Mike Clawson

    I think I’ll get the DVD out of the library and watch it again. Now I’m wondering what it is I actually saw.

    If you do, look for me. I’m sitting around a table in a dark room (it was actually the archaeology lab) talking with some other students. I’m the one with dark hair and a goatee that says something about how there had to be an actual Adam. I’m not sure I’d agree with myself anymore. :)

    I was told the same thing recently by a biology prof at Calvin – they’re theistic evolutionists and are impatient with proponents of ID.

    Yep, you’ll find that most mainstream evangelical schools (e.g. Wheaton, Calvin, Taylor, Westmont, Seattle Pacific, Gordon, Trinity, Judson, Baylor, Messiah, etc.) support teaching evolution.

    I do remember that they interviewed the family of a boy who was starting Wheaton. His mother told them that one of her friends warned her not to send him to Wheaton, as he’d lose his faith there!

    That’s very common. A lot of students come to Wheaton from even more conservative backgrounds or from families where the parents simply aren’t all that intellectual and have never bothered to think through the Creation/Evolution debate for themselves. (I think we need to realize that people like us who like to discuss theology and science online are relatively rare in the broader society. A good number of people are Creationists – or Evolutionists too I’d wager – simply by default. They’ve never really bothered to investigate it very deeply – they’re too busy going to work, raising families, watching sports, etc.) Many students wrestle with the the creation/evolution question early on and most come out as theistic evolutionists by the end in my experience.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X