Search This Blog

Monday, April 12, 2010

I get vehement about racism. No Racism Allowed!!!



First, I will apologize to scohen for lumping him in with liberals who play the race card all the time, I get talking about "commenters" and then find myself generalizing when generalization is an enemy to communication. So Sean (It is Sean, right?) I do hereby apologize for lumping you in because you rightly complained about being called a racist. I do not think you are a racist.

To be clear, I was extremely fortunate to be raised by a family who did not believe in racism. My very odd parents did not go to church nor did they proclaim that God was the Creator but they tried to teach me the "Golden Rule" and considered the Ten Commandments and all rules of law to be solid as rocks. I think I have mentioned this before, but as a child when we would find a geode while hiking the hills of Southern Indiana I steadfastly refused to call them "N----heads" even though that was the local term. I refused to even say the "N Word" or use other derogatory terms towards other nationalities or religions and etc. I know I surely must owe my parents for this and I am thankful that they did try to raise me right. Since they did not provide a base or absolutes for the rules I eventually wandered away from many of them, in order to enjoy "wine, women, and song" and drugs and etc. But racism was not anything I enjoyed and I always found it offensive.

So I will not take credit for not being a racist, I was raised that way and fortunately stayed that way. If you look at my blog links you will see that some of the blogs are written by men and some by women. Some are written by people of color. At least one is written by a homosexual and I do not approve of the practice but nevertheless that is a blog worth checking into and it does not promote sin so there you go. I also have blogs from Jews and Catholics and at least two Islamic people (who are NOT terrorists) and a handful I could not even tell you what they are. Unless you look, or have it proclaimed, the internet does not show race, creed, religion or philosophy.

Because I not only abhor racism but I also abhor those who promote racism, some readers are offended when I lambaste racists of color. How dare I take shots at Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson, Jr, and "Flaky" Pfleger and Al Sharpton? Because they promote racism, that is why! A black man or a yellow man or a red man or a white man or woman or whatever, no one person of any color should judge another person because of their color. We often say "race" and at times because of convenience I may use that term but I do not believe it and prefer to avoid it. I do not believe in race.

I think all people are one kind. Did you know that we all intermarry and have children? We just come in varieties of skin tone and hair color and eye color. We have big-boned and skinny, we have tall and short, we have freckles and moles or no blemishes at all. Some of us have large areas of skin that lack color so it looks like bleach got spilled on a few places on our bodies. But no one group of people is superior to another.

We support a few missionaries, including a couple who are missionaries to Papua New Guinea. This week we just met a new missionary from that country, a woman who grew up around here and gave her life to going out to tell people about Jesus as a girl. She also wanted to be married but every guy she really liked? They didn't want to go on a mission and she was SURE she was called to do it. She now has a webpage and I am going to add it to the blog links although she is so busy she actually posts something maybe once a year.

Anyway, she went to the far interior of Papua New Guinea. Her story is amazing. She and her first fellow worker went to learn the language and customs so they could translate the Bible into their tongue. They did not try to Americanize them and they lived amongst them (wearing a few more clothes). It took so long before both sides understood each other but the people of that village were so excited when they found out that a "thorn" (pen) could write their language on banana leaves (paper) that soon all but four of the local medicine men were coming to learn to write their own language and read the Bible in their own language. Now out of the hundreds of people in that region only two of them were not very dark skinned - Marilyn and her missionary partner.

Years later there are churches starting and Christianity is spreading in Papua New Guinea. No one is making anyone take bones out of their noses or put on dresses. No one is changing culture. The people are excited to find out that the Creator God (yes, they had a word for Him) had written a book! They may begin to wear a few more articles of clothing someday and perhaps not but you see they are not stupid or inferior they were and are just different in custom and appearance from the average American. Not worse, not better but equal in worth.

If you have dark skin and your ancestors came here on a slave ship it does not matter now. Africans enslaved Africans and sold them to Europeans and Americans and all of them were dead wrong. But that was not you and that was not me. We do not have anything to do with what those men and women did. Most of us so-called "white people" have some darker skinned ancestors (I do) and most of the darker folks have some lighter skinned ancestors back in the past. Who cares? Time to quit caring!

I think I laid out a good historical case that the Democrats were behind Jim Crow laws, were behind the KKK and fought tooth and nail to stop the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's. Only late in the game did Democrats sign on and I hate to say it but for many it was evil intentions that compelled them to join in.

The idea? If you can keep people from having jobs and pay them for doing nothing, if you can pay them to avoid marriage, if you can keep them from getting a decent education, then you can have an army of serfs to do your bidding for a pittance. Many of you would be shocked by how many millions of poor inner city people go into the voting booth having been paid 20 or 10 or even 5 bucks to pull the Donkey lever! Or they get paid in drugs. The ACORN voter fraud scandals are simply the tiny tip of a huge iceberg. I live close to the inner cities and even lived in them for a time and I know what I am saying.

Why do Democrats hate school vouchers? NOT because it benefits rich people (rich people can afford to send their kids anywhere anyway) but because it benefits those short on funds but long on dreams for their children. Why do you think the NEA is so pro-Democrat? They value their tenure and their jobs far more than the education level of the inner city kids. Democrats take baby steps when giant strides are needed to educate the poor! I do not have to tell you that the majority of poor people in inner cities are people of various colors other than white. I do not have to tell you that they tend to vote Democrat. I am telling you that this is why the system does not change.

I am confident that inner city families would rather have actual hope via good education and the possibility of even a low-paying job and would prefer to benefit from marriage rather than being penalized for it. We have taught poor people to not get married, have lots of kids out of wedlock and get that welfare check! This breeds an entitlement mentality that the Democrats try to sell the nation. We have a "right" to health insurance? NO! Do we have the "right" to be given a car, a house, a monthly stipend? NO!!! We have the right to be free to seek them by working and being smart and learning and earning them.

I hate to quote Jeremiah Wright when he vented and proclaimed from his pulpit, "G-- D--- America!"
No, but He will almost surely damn Wright and Farrakhan and all racist hatemongers who play on fear and prejudice and anger and frustration to guarantee that poor people stay poor and keep voting for Democrats.



There are many evils in this world. The so-called Westboro Baptists, a horror show of ungodly evil led by a depraved evil madman named Phelps. There are still KKK members in this country (Senator Byrd was a Kleagle and I would be surprised if he doesn't still keep in touch with the group) and there are skinheads and gang bangers and Nazi's and all sorts of hateful people who consider the color of someone's skin or their national heritage to be a measuring stick for their value. If God is going to damn anyone, it is those who believe these things and promote them. Oh yes, I do believe the only way to heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ. There will be many "good" people who refuse Christ and will find themselves faced with an accounting of their sins.

I do not deserve heaven, rather, my sins would send me straight to hell. But faith in Christ and His Grace save me. Not me doing good. It is all Jesus Christ. Jesus was a Jew, a man of brown skin and black hair and dark brown eyes. He would not have looked much like me. He did not come to save white people. He came to save people.

Now, you ask me why do I blame the Democrats in this post? Because of what they have done. Dear God, how can you drive through Gary, Indiana when the black Democrat and white Democrats alike (who do not get caught and go to jail) skim off money and live the good life while the entire city falls down around them? Democrats are not trying to change things because they always get a huge plurality for the Donkey from that area. East Chicago? Poor, largely settled by people of color, full of crooks running the place and falling to pieces daily. South Chicago. If you lived around here and knew the area you would be ashamed of yourself if you promoted the Democrats who rule around here!

Ask yourself, why do the largest cities with the biggest poverty problems support Democrats automatically? St. Louis and East St. Louis. South Los Angeles. San Francisco! All cities I have lived in or near to and all with the same dynamic.

I will not rail on it any more in this post, but Darwinism promoted racism (Darwin actively promoted the concept of less-evolved or lesser races) and Eugenics and so much of the racial indignities perpetrated in the last one hundred and fifty years can be laid to a great extent at Darwin's door. I know my history. Do you? Do you realize what Woodrow Wilson did? Do you understand what the carpetbaggers of the 1870's did in the South? Are you aware of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century? If not, go find out. Don't just have an automatic response to this post.

It is tragic that people of color have been hindered and beaten down long after the end of slavery by those who only want political advantage and those who believe that white people are "more evolved!" What a ludicrous idea, what a hellish idea! It is one of the reasons I attack Darwinism, because not only does Darwin clash with Christ, Darwinism causes people of color to be mistreated and judged. God help you if you judge another person based on the color of their skin!!!

14 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

I get vehement about racism.

As well you should. As should we all.

but Darwinism promoted racism (Darwin actively promoted the concept of less-evolved or lesser races) and Eugenics and so much of the racial indignities perpetrated in the last one hundred and fifty years can be laid to a great extent at Darwin's door. I know my history.

Unfortunately, you let your hatred of Darwin color your perception of history. By the standards of his time (a very important qualifier), Darwin was a very enlightened thinker. Among other things, he was vehemently anti-slavery. By today's standards he held some racist beliefs, yes. But then, by today's standards just about everyone alive in the 1800s held some racist beliefs. The man who freed the American slaves, Abraham Lincoln, believed it was impossible for blacks and whites to coexist peacefully; his solution to slavery was to free the slaves and then move them out of the US en masse, to become colonists of a new "homeland" somewhere in Central America.

It's true that Darwin's ideas were seized on by racists as justification for their beliefs, but OTOH it's also true that racists, anti-semites, and other hate groups have used the Bible as justification for their beliefs. Does that make Christianity inherently racist? I think not.

It is one of the reasons I attack Darwinism, because not only does Darwin clash with Christ, Darwinism causes people of color to be mistreated and judged.

Again, I think not. One can accept evolution and be racist. One can be a creationist and be racist. One can accept evolution and be strongly against racism. One can also be a creationist and be strongly against racism. There's simply no correlation between the two topics.

creeper said...

It's interesting that in order to make your point re. the Democratic party being racist, you have to go back decades and decades. Ever hear of the Southern strategy?

Re. your comments on "Darwinism": what Jon said.

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

Darwinism removes God from the equation in an attempt to replace "faith" in a Creator with a "scientific" explanation of "natural processes". Science tends to accept only things it can see, hear, feel, taste, touch or measure (and even then it tends to question those sensations and measurements). God falls into none of these material categories, therefore "God" becomes irrelevant (to some). God is not a variable which can be measured, sensed or quantified... therefore He must be eliminated from the equation.

Darwin's "theory" is called "evolution". It is as yet an unproven "hypothesis" because, as Radar so aptly points out, some processes and structures and findings cannot be adequately explained utilizing only "natural" processes. Macro-evolution has never been conclusively demonstrated.

And what is often explained as "speciation" seems spurious to me. One type of mosquito becoming a new type of mosquito, or one type of fish becoming a slightly different type of fish hardly qualifies as "speciation". Slight changes in color, structure, genetics or behavior based on isolation, location or environment cannot define a new species.

Why do I say that? Because if that is the case, then we must be willing to accept the notion that there is not one single species of human being. All of the minor differences between humans (color, structure, genetics and behavior) would require that each be considered a separate species.

Are African humans a different species than European humans? I wouldn't dare suggest that to an African-American if I were you. Thus, if we cannot accept that definition of "speciation" for human beings, then why should we accept it for other creatures? It's nonsense.

Bottom line? No speciation means no "evolution". Those differences are nothing more than adaptations of the "same species" to a different environment, location or climate.

As Radar suggests, Darwinism formed the basis for such radical experiments as the abortion of unfit human "species". Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to eradicate blacks and retarded people. Adolf Hitler had his concept of Germans as the "Master Race" and developed the "Ultimate Solution" (extermination) for the "Jewish problem". Eugenics was hailed as "self-directed human evolution".

But these are the kinds of problems that develop when God is removed from the equation. Man is viewed as a worthless animal rather than as a unique individual created in the image of God. When the Creator is removed, there is nothing left but the creature. When the beauty, spirituality and transcendence of God are removed, there is nothing left but the coarse baseness of the animal jungle.

Hawkeye® said...

It is also interesting that Liberals (primarily Democratic Liberals) prefer to remove God from the equation as well. When Ann Coulter published her book called "Godless", the Liberals took no exception with the premise of the work, but instead chose to criticize it on a minor passage that had nothing to do with the substance of the work.

The following is an excerpt of a review of Coulter's work which says it far better than I could...

"If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.

Many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion. But as Ann Coulter reveals in this, her most explosive book yet, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on our Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: liberalism is a religion — a godless one (emphasis added).

And it is now entrenched as the state religion of this country.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In 'Godless', Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is — Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion."

creeper said...

Hawkeye,

there are certain errors in what you just said, as well as certain gaps in your knowledge. I'm not saying this to offend you, but I'll try to fill in a few of these gaps below.

"Macro-evolution has never been conclusively demonstrated."

You mean whether it has occurred? That has been demonstrated so extensively in the fossil record supported by genetic evidence that it is at this point considered not just scientific theory, but a scientific fact. The theory part is how it happened - and that too is extensively supported by evidence.

Or do you mean that we haven't been able to observe it in a laboratory setting? That would depend on the meaning of macro-evolution. If you take it to mean "speciation" (evolution at the species level and above), which it is commonly taken to mean, then yes, it has been observed in laboratory settings. But as we've discussed with Radar - you may have seen some of these discussions over the past year or so - they do not suddenly turn into completely different animals, if I can put it in such simple terms. Bacteria are still bacteria, for example.

And that is exactly what we would expect according to the modern understanding of biology and the theory of evolution. Any evolution of, say, a fly turning into "something other than a fly" would take so many generations that we would decidedly not expect to see it in a human lifetime.

"And what is often explained as "speciation" seems spurious to me. One type of mosquito becoming a new type of mosquito, or one type of fish becoming a slightly different type of fish hardly qualifies as "speciation". Slight changes in color, structure, genetics or behavior based on isolation, location or environment cannot define a new species."

Allow me to clear up the confusion here. Species in the sense of speciation is generally taken to mean that it is reproductively isolated. A new species is formed if it can no longer reproduce with the species from which it evolved. If a species is geographically split and evolves over many generations, it is said to be 2 different species if they can no longer reproduce together. That is speciation. It's not just a matter of whether a fish is "just a little different" or is "something other than a fish".

"Are African humans a different species than European humans? I wouldn't dare suggest that to an African-American if I were you. "

No need. Both are the same species, homo sapiens. They can cheerfully reproduce with each other. Case closed.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Thus, if we cannot accept that definition of "speciation" for human beings, then why should we accept it for other creatures? It's nonsense."

As above. Speciation is reproductive isolation.

"Bottom line? No speciation means no "evolution". "

And its counterpart: speciation means evolution.

"As Radar suggests, Darwinism formed the basis for such radical experiments as the abortion of unfit human "species". Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to eradicate blacks and retarded people. Adolf Hitler had his concept of Germans as the "Master Race" and developed the "Ultimate Solution" (extermination) for the "Jewish problem". Eugenics was hailed as "self-directed human evolution"."

This is at best a massive misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution describes a process that occurs in nature; it is not a moral prescription. As someone said on this blog, going by this logic, you could look at the theory of gravity and take everything off shelves and put it on the ground, since that's what the theory of gravity would dictate. That's the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.

Yes, people may well have used evolution as justification for heinous acts, but that tells us nothing about its validity as a scientific theory.

People have also used religion and tribalism as justification for mass murder - and indeed mass murder and mass slavery are condoned and even commanded by the Christian God himself in the bible, so it's not as if a belief in a Christian God is some kind of safeguard against such acts - on the contrary.

"But these are the kinds of problems that develop when God is removed from the equation. Man is viewed as a worthless animal rather than as a unique individual created in the image of God. When the Creator is removed, there is nothing left but the creature. When the beauty, spirituality and transcendence of God are removed, there is nothing left but the coarse baseness of the animal jungle."

It may well look like that to you from the perspective of a Christian, and I can understand that. But atheism does not equal amorality. There is such a thing as secular humanism. If your suppositions were correct, the jails would be filled with atheists. Which they're not. I know quite a few atheists, and not one of them uses their non-belief in God as an excuse to indulge in immoral acts.

-- creeper

Chaos Engineer said...

Because I not only abhor racism but I also abhor those who promote racism, some readers are offended when I lambaste racists of color. How dare I take shots at Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson, Jr, and "Flaky" Pfleger and Al Sharpton? Because they promote racism, that is why!

To be fair, I don't think readers are offended when you criticize racists as such. I think they're offended because you're selective in your criticism...it's easy to get the impression that you're willing to ignore racism in your friends, and that makes you look insincere when you criticize racism in your enemies.

I'm not saying that you're actually indifferent to racism, I'm just saying that it might look that way to a casual reader.

Re-read the exchange about Angel's blog a few threads back. She said some things that were just incredibly offensive, and you made excuses for her. The sad part is, I think she respects your opinion, and some sincere criticism from you might have convinced her to change her way of thinking.

Or look at the people you've called racists in this thread. I count seven Democrats (including Woodrow Wilson), a crazy person, and Charles Darwin. Most of them haven't been in the news for months or years. Can't you think of any racists on your side to denounce? Racist Tea Party Patriot Carl Paladino was in the news just this week. Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, and National Review writer John Derbyshire also made some rather unpleasant racist remarks. All this week.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

How do you explain the fact you wrote this:

Angel, you are an island of sanity in a sea of stupidity that hopefully will turn into a storm of understanding and a tidal wave of votes that wash over Washington and replace the crooks with patriots!

following a post on Angel's blog that contained this:

“Hussein the Horrible” Obama is nothing more than a mulatto mixed-breed Muslim.

An island of sanity, huh? An island of non-racism, huh? Or did you just not see that line?

lava

Anonymous said...

looks like Chaos beat me to it

lava

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,

"Macro-evolution has never been conclusively demonstrated." -- You mean whether it has occurred? That has been demonstrated so extensively in the fossil record supported by genetic evidence that it is at this point considered not just scientific theory, but a scientific fact. The theory part is how it happened - and that too is extensively supported by evidence.

That is an interesting choice of words. You say macro-evolution has been "demonstrated" in the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record is far from complete and suggests just the opposite of gradual evolution. There are so many gaps and missing transitional forms as to make the fossil record completely useless. In point of fact, it is so incomplete that Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould had to come up with the theory of "punctuated equilibria" in order to account for the gaps. They postulated that macro-evolution takes place in spurts (in just a few generations) and that ordinarily, most species remain in "equilibrium".

Darwinists like to say the fossil record "proves" evolution because Darwin looked at the fossil record and it suggested to him the idea of evolution. That my friend is a circular argument. You cannot say that the fossil record "suggests" evolution and then turn around and say evolution is "proven" by the fossil record. If anything, the fossil record debunks Darwinism as defined by Darwin: slow, steady, continuous transition. It ain't happenin' man.

You also say: "it is at this point considered not just scientific theory, but a scientific fact." The key word here is "considered". That is not "proof"... that's "opinion". If I "consider" myself an expert on brain surgery, will you trust me to operate on you? I think not. I dare say you would rather have me "prove" it to you first. Macro-evolution has not been proven.

Or do you mean that we haven't been able to observe it in a laboratory setting? Yes, that is what I meant. A "theory" can only be "proven" by repeatable experiments. If you can't perform repeatable experiments then it remains theoretical only. If the obstacle always remains "time", then the "theory" will NEVER be proven. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

That would depend on the meaning of macro-evolution. If you take it to mean "speciation" (evolution at the species level and above), which it is commonly taken to mean, then yes, it has been observed in laboratory settings. No, I'm not talking about speciation.

But as we've discussed with Radar - you may have seen some of these discussions over the past year or so - they do not suddenly turn into completely different animals, if I can put it in such simple terms. Bacteria are still bacteria, for example. QED. Thank you for making my point. It has never been "demonstrated". It has never been "proven". It remains a "hypothesis".

Hawkeye® said...

And that is exactly what we would expect according to the modern understanding of biology and the theory of evolution. Of course it is. That's because you've stacked the deck in your favor. In essence what Darwinists say is the following: "Evolution is something that takes place over thousands of generations and thousands of years, therefore it cannot be "proven". Just believe it like we do". Well my friend, "belief" is not science... it is "faith". It is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Which by the way is the apostle Paul's definition of "faith".) It is an assumption (and you know what happens when we "assume"). It is not fact.

Any evolution of, say, a fly turning into "something other than a fly" would take so many generations that we would decidedly not expect to see it in a human lifetime. But that seems inconsistent with "punctuated equilibrium". Which is it to be? Thousands of generations... or just a few generations? You can't have it both ways. Or am I to believe that Eldrege and Gould are "heretics"? I thought they were respected evolutionists? I don't know, I must be confused.

Hawkeye® said...

"Bottom line? No speciation means no "evolution"." And its counterpart: speciation means evolution."

Not necessarily true. Your statement is a "non sequitur". It does not follow.

Consider: You need speciation in order to have evolution. You need bread to make sandwiches.

Without speciation, you cannot have evolution. And without bread you cannot make a sandwich.

Speciation means evolution. Bread means sandwiches.

Sorry. It does not follow.

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,
This [Eugenics] is at best a massive misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution describes a process that occurs in nature; it is not a moral prescription.

Agreed. Nevertheless, it points out the dramatic consequences that have "evolved" from Darwinism (pun intended). Jesus said: "So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit" (Matthew 7:17). Darwinism has produced much evil fruit.

Yes, people may well have used evolution as justification for heinous acts, but that tells us nothing about its validity as a scientific theory. -- That is correct. You need repeatable scientific experiments to prove the validity of any theory.

mass murder and mass slavery are condoned and even commanded by the Christian God himself in the bible -- God commanded Israel to slaughter its enemies on one or two occasions in the Old Testament. That is a far cry from "condoning" mass murder.

And you should be careful what you lay on Christians when using the term "Christian God". While it is true that the God of the Jews in the Old Testament is the same as the God of Christians in the New Testament, the teachings of Christ in no way condone "mass murder and mass slavery". In fact, I can't even think of an example where "mass slavery" was condoned in the Old Testament.

If your suppositions were correct, the jails would be filled with atheists. -- I would feel confident that if I took you through any number of prisons we could probably find more atheists than you would care to acknowledge.

radar said...

Hawkeye, your wordplay cuts through the BS like a rapier!

Evolution does not have proofs, it has hypotheses. I say the hypotheses do not match the evidence nearly as well as Creation.