Evolution and Stickers Revisted
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
Brian Gideon wrote: A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Judicial activism, nah. This is one of the reasons why I intend to support Newt Gingrich for president in 2008. He believes that the president has the power to retire federal judges and contends that it has been done in the past. Since he's a historian and constituitional scholar I'll take him at his word. Sounds like a terrific idea, retire federal judges then go through a process to vet and appoint a new batch, a batch that understands our history, the Constituition, and the actual responsibility of a judge (as opposed to the responsibility of a legislature). Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
Brian Gideon wrote: But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right? Well I think the prevaling argument is - once again - seperation of Church and State. Its a religious based conjecture vs a scientific conjecture. Along those same lines I would argue that String Theory is pretty far out as theories go. The prevaling model calls for the existance of a tachyon and - to the best of my knowledge - if such a particle existed we can not detect it. Unless of course Uncle Albert was wrong and so far he is batting 100% Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
The stickers clearly religiously motivated, and although the wording tried to dance around the motive, the intent was uncontitutional. Why not just a sticker with a definition of the word "Theory"? Why single out evolution? By picking that specific target, they exposed their motivation, which was an unconstitutional intrusion of religion, a backhanded endorsement of that creationism BS. I, for one am glad my tax money won't be wasted on this stupidity. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Brian Gideon wrote: But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right? Well I think the prevaling argument is - once again - seperation of Church and State. Its a religious based conjecture vs a scientific conjecture. Along those same lines I would argue that String Theory is pretty far out as theories go. The prevaling model calls for the existance of a tachyon and - to the best of my knowledge - if such a particle existed we can not detect it. Unless of course Uncle Albert was wrong and so far he is batting 100% Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
I saw a tachyon just tommorrow, or was that just yesterday...:-D Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
I saw a tachyon just tommorrow, or was that just yesterday...:-D Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Yea - them little suckers are here tommorrow - gone today. Kinda like "whos on first" :) Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
I don't think that the stickers themselves are unconstitutional, but the underlying motive (the teaching of religious beliefs as fact in school) either is or should be. I spend about ZERO seconds thinking about evolution on any given day. I think it's probably true -- it's certainly the best explanation currently out there -- but it just doesn't affect my daily life. The reason it does affect the lives of these religious poeple -- and the reason it bothers them enough to make this sticker -- is because it makes more sense than creationism to post-superstitious humans. Evolution disproves creationism and god says (in the bible) that he created the world -- so maybe god isn't real. That's the real issue, and no stickers are going to fix it.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
On a related note, I happened to find this on the internet today (makes you wonder who was behind the campaign to get these stickers in the books): _A recently-circulated position paper of The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC) reveals an ambitious plan to replace the current naturalistic methodology of science with a theistic alternative called "intelligent design." The CRSC, a program launched by the Discovery Institute in 1996, is the major force behind recent advances in the intelligent design movement. The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College. Its mission is "to replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative." The Discovery Institute hopes that intelligent design will be the usurper that finally dethrones the theory of evolution. ...
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
... The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe), and any individual researcher who is given a fellowship by the Institute. Phase I has already begun, the paper argues, with the watershed work of Phillip Johnson, whose Darwinism on Trial sparked the in_
-
On a related note, I happened to find this on the internet today (makes you wonder who was behind the campaign to get these stickers in the books): _A recently-circulated position paper of The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC) reveals an ambitious plan to replace the current naturalistic methodology of science with a theistic alternative called "intelligent design." The CRSC, a program launched by the Discovery Institute in 1996, is the major force behind recent advances in the intelligent design movement. The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College. Its mission is "to replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative." The Discovery Institute hopes that intelligent design will be the usurper that finally dethrones the theory of evolution. ...
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
... The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe), and any individual researcher who is given a fellowship by the Institute. Phase I has already begun, the paper argues, with the watershed work of Phillip Johnson, whose Darwinism on Trial sparked the in_
Brit wrote: makes you wonder who was behind the campaign to get these stickers in the books Nothing to wonder about. The 'lady' in question, Kathy Cox, the superintendant of Education has been pushing creationism since she was a state rep. (a bill to "drop controversial subjects' and 'provide alternative learning materials') and earlier last year to strike the word "evolution" from the curriculum. The stickers are just her latest disgusting ploy. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
I find it amazing that these stickers even exist. :omg: " The schools placed the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life. " Erm... they are Biology textbooks, they are designed to teach science not religion. Until religion can explain why our hearts beat at x times per second or why our blood is red and not green we need science. Leave religious views to RE lessons. I would like to see stickers placed on the covers of Bibles: " This book contains material on God. God is a theory, not a fact, that requires an individuals faith to work. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. "
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
I find it amazing that these stickers even exist. :omg: " The schools placed the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life. " Erm... they are Biology textbooks, they are designed to teach science not religion. Until religion can explain why our hearts beat at x times per second or why our blood is red and not green we need science. Leave religious views to RE lessons. I would like to see stickers placed on the covers of Bibles: " This book contains material on God. God is a theory, not a fact, that requires an individuals faith to work. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. "
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
[sarcasm] I just wish they would give equal time to competing theories. For example, all schools teach the secular idea of the germ-origin of disease. Why aren't they allowed to teach Augustine's views on disease: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants." I recommend a sticker: “This textbook contains material on the germ theory of disease. Germs are a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of disease. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” [/sarcasm] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
[sarcasm] I just wish they would give equal time to competing theories. For example, all schools teach the secular idea of the germ-origin of disease. Why aren't they allowed to teach Augustine's views on disease: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants." I recommend a sticker: “This textbook contains material on the germ theory of disease. Germs are a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of disease. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” [/sarcasm] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Ok, sure, I guess that was an extreme example though? At least over here creationism and all things Christian are given a lot of dedication at highschool level - along with Budishm, Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, Hinduism and even some of the less mainstream religions. I certainly didn't leave school without understanding some of the other theories to the origin of life.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
Brian Gideon wrote: Consider a textbook about physics a physics textbook wouldn't have a complaint about string theory. it would complain about the Big Bang, because the people who want these stickers are trying to get Christian* teaching into science classrooms, and obviously, the Big Bang theory blows a hole in a literal reading of the Bible's creation explanation. that Will Not Do. but, this isn't really about theory vs. fact, except that the Intelligent Design gang knows the word "theory" has a commonly accepted meaning that they can spin in their favor. even some conservatives are able to understand this. John Derbyshire, in the National Review[^]:
"None of the ID people I have encountered (in person or books) is an open-minded inquirer trying to uncover facts about the world. Every one I know of is a Christian looking to justify his faith. This naturally inclines me to think that they are grinding axes, not conducting dispassionate science. This is, in my opinion, not only a path to bad science, but also a path to bad theology."
i highly recommend www.pandasthumb.org/[^] to anyone who likes heavy-duty evolution vs. intelligent design arguments, in a forum where evolution always wins ( of course ;) ). * - not Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or any other religion (well, i guess Judaism would get a boost from this by simple historical accident). Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
I find it amazing that these stickers even exist. :omg: " The schools placed the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life. " Erm... they are Biology textbooks, they are designed to teach science not religion. Until religion can explain why our hearts beat at x times per second or why our blood is red and not green we need science. Leave religious views to RE lessons. I would like to see stickers placed on the covers of Bibles: " This book contains material on God. God is a theory, not a fact, that requires an individuals faith to work. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. "
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: " This book contains material on God. God is a theory, not a fact, that requires an individuals faith to work. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. " Who knows, maybe we'll start seeing them on court room Bibles.
-
Ok, sure, I guess that was an extreme example though? At least over here creationism and all things Christian are given a lot of dedication at highschool level - along with Budishm, Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, Hinduism and even some of the less mainstream religions. I certainly didn't leave school without understanding some of the other theories to the origin of life.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
I have no problem with the teaching of creationism in a comparative religion class. I would, of course, expect equal time be given to other religion's theories of the origin of man, and of morality. In a biology class, however, it has absolutely no place. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
I'd be happy if they just taught critical thinking, logic and the scientific method. Once you understand those concepts this whole debate becomes meaningless.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
On a related note, I happened to find this on the internet today (makes you wonder who was behind the campaign to get these stickers in the books): _A recently-circulated position paper of The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC) reveals an ambitious plan to replace the current naturalistic methodology of science with a theistic alternative called "intelligent design." The CRSC, a program launched by the Discovery Institute in 1996, is the major force behind recent advances in the intelligent design movement. The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College. Its mission is "to replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative." The Discovery Institute hopes that intelligent design will be the usurper that finally dethrones the theory of evolution. ...
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
... The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe), and any individual researcher who is given a fellowship by the Institute. Phase I has already begun, the paper argues, with the watershed work of Phillip Johnson, whose Darwinism on Trial sparked the in_
Bring it on. Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". The latter is untenable, so if the Design Theorists (man I love the new term!) wish to put forward their views then they should, and must, do so in a manner that, reciprocally, allows an open mind, sound reasoning without being disingenuous and welcomes challenges and alternatives. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
A judge ruled[^] that the stickers placed in textbooks informing readers that evolution is a theory is unconstitutional. Yeah, the stickers are a bad idea, but are they really unconstitutional? Afterall, they aren't endorsing a religion. In fact, they aren't endorsing any alternative theory. Consider a textbook about physics (Brian Greene would be the author of course :)). If a sticker were placed in that book that read, "This textbook contains material on superstring theory. Superstrings provide a theory, not a fact, on the origin of the universe. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It would be pretty silly right? But, is it actually unconstitutional? Just because it's silly and a waste of taxpayer money doesn't make it unconsitutional right?
Yet another perfect example of the unrelenting attack from the Secularists to utterly displace any competitive set of moral principles. The people of Cobb county Ga were acting perfectly within their constitutional rights to have any damned thing they wanted plaecd within any text book they wanted in their own school district. That is precisely the how the people who wrote the constitution intended for it to work, not to be used by some fucking judge to impose his own personal set of principles without regard to the will of the people. And than the liberals stand around scratching their heads wondering why there is a reaction against this kind of tyranny. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
I don't think that the stickers themselves are unconstitutional, but the underlying motive (the teaching of religious beliefs as fact in school) either is or should be. I spend about ZERO seconds thinking about evolution on any given day. I think it's probably true -- it's certainly the best explanation currently out there -- but it just doesn't affect my daily life. The reason it does affect the lives of these religious poeple -- and the reason it bothers them enough to make this sticker -- is because it makes more sense than creationism to post-superstitious humans. Evolution disproves creationism and god says (in the bible) that he created the world -- so maybe god isn't real. That's the real issue, and no stickers are going to fix it.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religion or science one way or the other. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
I find it amazing that these stickers even exist. :omg: " The schools placed the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life. " Erm... they are Biology textbooks, they are designed to teach science not religion. Until religion can explain why our hearts beat at x times per second or why our blood is red and not green we need science. Leave religious views to RE lessons. I would like to see stickers placed on the covers of Bibles: " This book contains material on God. God is a theory, not a fact, that requires an individuals faith to work. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. "
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion