Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did you read your horoscope today PP?

I think it warns of making yourself look like a fool.

Exposure to new ideas and learning is emphasized now. Your mind will be flooded with new information and ideas, and you will feel enthusiastic and excited by these fresh ideas and insights. Areas in which you have little exposure or consider yourself weak will now come into your life. For example, if you have computer-phobia or math-phobia or metaphysics-phobia or any other kind of information phobia, then this is a time when you can break through your fear and learn more about these areas.


Thats my daily horoscope.



that was pretty well timed

 

[geauxtohell]

No I didn't say that at all. Sorry you dont have a 5th grade reading comprehension level

Actually, you did:

Science is not decided by majority vote. Can the majority of scientists be wrong about scientific matters? Yes they can.

Scientific consensus drives science. That means the overwhelming view held by the majority of scientists in the field is the accepted view. That further means that theories are not chucked because a lone dissenter (like Behe) disagrees with the consensus.

The consensus can certainly be wrong, but in the end the burden of proof is on the other guy.

ID has consistently failed to meet that burden.

Well at least you wear your dishonesty on your sleeve....quote where I called anyone an idiot in this thread. Jackanapes.

This is your quote:

Just because darwin might not of figured everything out wont make you idiots for believing in his theories, they have validity after all.

If your intent wasn't to call us idiots, than fair enough. I am not interested in getting in petty semantics squabbles with you over what your typed versus your intent.

BTW good to see so many of you have closed your minds in the realm of science....flat earthers.

As demonstrated on this thread, you don't even understand the scientific method and it's limitations (and why those limitations exist).

Call us what you want, but you are on the outside looking in. I suppose the ramifications of allowing supernatural entities to creep into scientific thoughts is completely lost on a dullard like you. Here, I'll spell it out for you.

Q: "Where does cancer come from?"
A: "God"

Q: "How will we get to the moon?"
A: "God will put us there if he sees fit."

Don't act like for one second that your are interested in advancing science by introducing supernatural powers into it. You would, in fact, be reverting scientific thought back to the dark ages.

If you want to deal with the supernatural, go into philosophy. That's where it belongs.

i guess you would have been against einstein looking into newtons laws of physics more deeply and been part of the church people yelling the earth is flat too.

Oh, who is being dishonest now? Einstein didn't re-examine Newton's work because he adhered to intelligent design and no one on here has ever suggested that any scientific theory is immune to criticism, change, or further exploration.

We are suggesting that criticism, change, and further exploration has to meet the standards of the scientific method, which excludes the supernatural.

And you are damn well smart enough to know that.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

A strawman is pretending your opponent made an argument that they didn't. 'ID came about as a way to shoehorn creationism' was geauxtohell's argument and he's not pretending it's someone else's.

Thanks for pointing out the patently obvious. Much appreciated.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Just because darwin might not of figured everything out wont make you idiots for believing in his theories, they have validity after all.

If your intent wasn't to call us idiots, than fair enough. I am not interested in getting in petty semantics squabbles with you over what your typed versus your intent.

I said it "DOES NOT make you an idiot as the theories have validity" (paraphrased)....like I said comprehension.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Science is not decided by majority vote but by a consensus. Can the majority of scientists be wrong about scientific matters? Yes they can.

Scientific consensus drives science. That means the overwhelming view held by the majority of scientists in the field is the accepted view. That further means that theories are not chucked because a lone dissenter (like Behe) disagrees with the consensus.

The consensus can certainly be wrong, but in the end the burden of proof is on the other guy.

ID has consistently failed to meet that burden.

Your pulling at strings here and i'm party to blame...i should have stated that with the red part added.

If the other guy is shut down and not allowed to explore other areas, such as is done to ID people by others calling them creationists, then they dont get the opportunity to prove otherwise.

Why the urge to shut down a vein of thought on evolution? The only thing that can happen by letting people reasearch is either no new information is gathered or the theory of evolution is expanded on....for science's sake what is wrong with that?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

BTW good to see so many of you have closed your minds in the realm of science....flat earthers.

As demonstrated on this thread, you don't even understand the scientific method and it's limitations (and why those limitations exist).

Call us what you want, but you are on the outside looking in. I suppose the ramifications of allowing supernatural entities to creep into scientific thoughts is completely lost on a dullard like you. Here, I'll spell it out for you.

Q: "Where does cancer come from?"
A: "God"

Q: "How will we get to the moon?"
A: "God will put us there if he sees fit."

Don't act like for one second that your are interested in advancing science by introducing supernatural powers into it. You would, in fact, be reverting scientific thought back to the dark ages.

If you want to deal with the supernatural, go into philosophy. That's where it belongs.

See right there this whole argument is strawman in nature.

I already said ID is not saying it was god that created everything but that it seems there is more too it than just evolution. ID people want to explore into to see if they can prove that or not....and you just want to say they are supernatural religious freaks and shut down their research. Reminds me of the old-school catholic church going after scientists.

 

[slackjawed]

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Belief in God

Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a "God of the gaps", these scientists, and still others alive today, believe because of the evidence.

Rich Deem

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
11. Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i guess you would have been against einstein looking into newtons laws of physics more deeply and been part of the church people yelling the earth is flat too.

Oh, who is being dishonest now? Einstein didn't re-examine Newton's work because he adhered to intelligent design and no one on here has ever suggested that any scientific theory is immune to criticism, change, or further exploration.

We are suggesting that criticism, change, and further exploration has to meet the standards of the scientific method, which excludes the supernatural.

And you are damn well smart enough to know that.

What the hell are you talking about now....i never said einstein re-examined newton's work becaue of ID.

What I said was Einstein expanded on newtons laws of physics, much like ID people are trying to do with Darwins Theory of evolution.

I then went on to say your Stance on ID was akin to being against Einstein looking into physics since darwin "Already figured it out". Or its akin to not looking into plate techtonics because we knew at one point the earth's crust didn't move. I think you need a 3rd example....not exploring astronomy because we know the earth is the center of the universe.

By just trying to shut down ID using bogus claims of supernatural religious vodoo you are acting like the flat-earthers and the old school catholic church in your efforts to shut down a different avenue of research.

Please take more time when reading my posts so you can comprehend what I'm writing.

 

[slackjawed]

I made my last post to show what we might have missed if we discounted scientists that believe in god.
One scientists that did not believe in god was Percival Lowell, who spent his life looking for little green men on mars to prove that god did not exist.

One extreme is no different than the other.
Those that want to prevent any subject work in the field of science for any reason are the ones that deny the scientific method. The scientific method is what our schools should teach students, and that scientific method includes critical thinking skills. That's what's missing from some in this thread, critical thing skills.
Those that have a shortage of critical thinking skills are the ones that want to place limits on science or make statements saying that one group of researchers study science, the other group studies superstition. There should be no limits, none. The only limits should be that the process of study must follow the scientific method, which includes critical thinking skills and providing data that can be independently reproduced.
Anyone who states that "the science is settled, the debate is over" in any field of study should be censored by their piers.
those that are threatened by research that might disprove their opinions are not capable of critical thinking, and therefore, anti-science.

 

[slackjawed]

Harland Elison, who one can argue started the modern "religious people can't study science" was a science FICTION writer, not even close to a scientist. His novels and short stories demonstrate extreme bias against people of faith, and some of the posters here follow that example.
Bertrand Russel was a mathamatician, (sp) and a as such was a scientist. He was at one time the world's most famous atheist, while at the same time a supporter of research to ultimately prove or disprove the existence of God.
His manifesto "Why I am Not A Christian" is a lesson in the skills of critical thinking and how the scientific method can be applied to thought processes and decision making.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In my opinion, Creationism and ID have a place in classes of philosophy, comparative religions, liberal arts, etc., but never in the science classroom.

They are not science.

 

[slackjawed]

In my opinion, Creationism and ID have a place in classes of philosophy, comparative religions, liberal arts, etc., but never in the science classroom.

They are not science.

If philosophy, comparative religions, liberal arts are studied by applying the scientific method, then they are indeed science. If they are studied in a way to discourage critical thinking they are not.
Same applies to mathamatics, physics, geology and medicine.
Science is really about the method of studying, rather than the subject being studied.
The scientific method of study doesn't include barring some based on personal beliefs, and especially doesn't include the statement "the science is settled, the debate is over".

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I made my last post to show what we might have missed if we discounted scientists that believe in god.

You made a sad appeal to authority.

Those that want to prevent any subject work in the field of science for any reason are the ones that deny the scientific method.

\

You're an idiot. Religion isn't science. Refusing to permit religion into the halls of science because it isn't science isn't 'denying the scientific method', you dolt. Get a clue and then come back.

The only limits should be that the process of study must follow the scientific method,

That rules out creationism, be it the protestents, the catholics, or the IDiots.

Anyone who states that "the science is settled, the debate is over" in any field of study should be censored by their piers.

You're a fucking moron. Earth is not flat. The science is settled. The debate is over.

Dumbass

 

[slackjawed]

I made my last post to show what we might have missed if we discounted scientists that believe in god.

You made a sad appeal to authority.

Those that want to prevent any subject work in the field of science for any reason are the ones that deny the scientific method.

\

You're an idiot. Religion isn't science. Refusing to permit religion into the halls of science because it isn't science isn't 'denying the scientific method', you dolt. Get a clue and then come back.

The only limits should be that the process of study must follow the scientific method,

That rules out creationism, be it the protestents, the catholics, or the IDiots.

Anyone who states that "the science is settled, the debate is over" in any field of study should be censored by their piers.

You're a fucking moron. Earth is not flat. The science is settled. The debate is over.

Dumbass

Limiting any field of study makes one a dumbass.
The earth was proven with scientific measurments not to be flat, it is a proven theory- and a very poor strawmnan argument made by one who proves themselves to be an arrogant asshat.
Close-mindedness and making strawman arguments makes one a dumbass, not questioning and considering all possibilities. Dumbass!

 

[slackjawed]

We really need to fix our schools and make it so our students are taught the difference between the ability to memorize "facts" and to engage in critical thinking that allows one to form their own opinions.
Those that were taught to memorize 'facts' are the ones that feel threatened by research that does not agree with their own opinions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Limiting any field of study makes one a dumbass.

Really? Then you support allowing the experiments of Mengele to resume?

The earth was proven with scientific measurments not to be flat, it is a proven theory-

Actually, it's a proven fact. So you admit the science is settled on that one, my little retarded friend?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In my opinion, Creationism and ID have a place in classes of philosophy, comparative religions, liberal arts, etc., but never in the science classroom.

They are not science.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Intelligent design - New World Encyclopedia


Basically I'm saying I disagree with your assertation that it is not a scientific form of reasearch

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program

No, it doesn't. ID posits the existence of a supernatural force or entity and falls wholly outside the realms ofscience.

 

[geauxtohell]

Your pulling at strings here and i'm party to blame...i should have stated that with the red part added.

Not at all. You claimed that science was not a democracy. Though, it actually is. There isn't a vote, but consensus drives the venture. That means if the majority of scientists accept it, then it's accepted as the prevailing theory until proven otherwise.

That is the case with evolution, and has been for 160 years.

If the other guy is shut down and not allowed to explore other areas, such as is done to ID people by others calling them creationists, then they dont get the opportunity to prove otherwise.

ID hasn't been "shut down". They just can't frame their hypothesis in a scientifically valid way. That's the problem, not whether ID is right or wrong. That question is beyond the scope of science.

You can call ID philosophy if you want, but it's not a scientific theory.

Even if ID is suppressed at the university level (a hard argument since Behe still has his job at Lehigh), the Discovery Institute exists purely to advance ID through scientific means. Yet, they do little, if any bench science work on ID and instead spend their time and efforts trying to influence public opinion?

Why do you think that is?

Why the urge to shut down a vein of thought on evolution?

Because it's not a scientific theory and allowing it to be deemed so would corrupt the methodology that drives science.

The only thing that can happen by letting people reasearch is either no new information is gathered or the theory of evolution is expanded on....for science's sake what is wrong with that?

Again, no one is stopping the Discovery Institute from conducting research and submitting their findings for peer review.

 

[geauxtohell]

See right there this whole argument is strawman in nature.

It's not a strawman arguement. You just are unwiliing or unable to see what allowing supernatural powers into the scientific method would result in.

I already said ID is not saying it was god that created everything but that it seems there is more too it than just evolution.

A valid counter-theory needs to offer more than just a negative argument. Saying "this is all too complex to have happened through chance" is not a scientific argument either.

If there is "more to it than evolution" than the "more to it" needs to be provided and it needs to fit within the constraints of scientific methodology.

This is where Behe failed with his "irreducible complexity" argument.

I also accept that some people who adhere to ID don't think "God" was the driving force. However, for the sake of our discussion, based on the findings of the court in Dover we can state that the modern ID movement in this country very much exists to shimmy around the establishment clause in the constitution and re-insert God into the science classroom. In fact, the modern proponents of ID have been caught in so many lies, that it's hard to take them seriously.

You can refer back to my first post if you doubt that. Of course, then you would have to actually read and consider it and not just dismiss it as a "strawman arguement".

BTW, as noted before, that was a curious statement to make. There was a whole court case on this matter. I basically echoed the findings of the court.

ID people want to explore into to see if they can prove that or not...

I'll save them the trouble. They can't prove it. Not unless they can create a null hypothesis for the existence of an intelligent sentient force that drives speciation. That would mean they would have to be able to disprove the existence of such a force.

If we cut to the chase and call that force "God", then I have serious doubts that ID is going to solve the fundamental question that man has been wrestling with since the beginning of time.

That being said. Nothing is stopping them from trying. They just refuse to do bench science work on the matter.

Now why would that be?

and you just want to say they are supernatural religious freaks and shut down their research. Reminds me of the old-school catholic church going after scientists.

You know, you are quick to throw out the term "liar" on this board. I generally don't get worked up about much here, but I don't like having my integrity questioned. Case in point, contrary to what you just claimed my views are, my issue with ID is not religion, and I am not an atheist.

So does that make you a liar, a hypocrite, or both? Or maybe you are just confused. Either way I could care less, but stop miss-representing my views on this matter.

My interest is in preserving the scientific method from a force that wants to drastically change it. Such a change would corrupt it.

You don't get that, and that is why you are so lost on this matter. You think this is some sort of attack on religion by us. In fact, those of us who are opposed to ID view it as quite the opposite.