Нобелова награда и научници креационисти

[cloudking]

  On 26. 11. 2016. at 17:46, Kratos рече

El ima negde s prevodom?

Expand  

Nema... ovi klipovi su pravljeni za ateiste...

[Аурор]

  On 26. 11. 2016. at 17:48, о.Горан рече

Баш тако, видиш како знаш-уз Божију помоћ.

Ето нпр. једна од тих ствари је и овај форум који је био моја идеја.

Expand  

 

На томе нпр. - свака част!

[о.Горан]

  On 26. 11. 2016. at 17:46, Kratos рече

El ima negde s prevodom?

Expand  

Нема на жалост, али биће. Сад се доста енергије троши на мисионарење као ово овде јер је страшно колико су људима испрани мозгови, али артикулисаће се та енергија боље у будућности... Нпр.на превођење оваквих и сличних видео записа на којима су врхунски научници. Шефер нпр. је научник за себе, он је више слободан стрелац и човек саставом него што је припадник ИД покрета у класичном смислу речи.

Какогод, код нас су скоро потпуно непознате те дебате између натуралиста и заступника ИД/креационизма које се деценијама воде на Западу. То је један прави мали и тихи рат о коме ретко које новине да су ишта написале јер не могу од силних безвезарија да дођу на ред паметне ствари. Ми по правилу са запада примамо оберучке сав њихов шљам као што су дрога, ријалити програми, серије направљене на исти калуп само са различитим именима, агресија итд., а све оно што вреди одатле код нас много касно пали-дисциплина, пословност, ова тематика...

[о.Горан]

Имамо и позитивних примера као што су следећи...

Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution

 

1. Nobel Laureate and Intelligent Design proponent: Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973)

 

 

Evidence that Dr. Brian Josephson is an Intelligent Design supporter

“OK, so where’s your proof that Brian Josephson is an Intelligent Design advocate?” I hear you ask. Happy to oblige. Dr. Josephson professed his belief in a version of Intelligent Design in a lecture that he delivered to the Cambridge Physics Society on March 5, 2008, entitled, “A Critical Point for Science?” Here’s a quote from the abstract:

Current physics implicitly assumes matter is fundamental, life and mentality being secondary. There are reasons for thinking that such a picture may be incomplete, leading to error. This lecture describes a new conceptual foundation that reverses the order of things, making life and mentality more basic than matter.

Life and Mind are more basic than matter! Sounds promising. But wait – it gets better. Towards the end of his lecture, Dr. Josephson talked about some taboo ideas which he hoped would become a part of science, one day:

You could say what I’ve been proposing is an extension of science because mind has been added, a whole new thing is added into the picture, and some ideas as to how to handle it, but they’re not the usual equations, they’re rather complicated ideas like attractors and information processors, and of course quantum theory regards information as fundamental as well, so there may be lots of links with conventional science. Well that would lead I think to taboo ideas becoming a part of science, not a respectable part, but a reluctantly accepted part, because they would come nicely out of this picture, so I guess I’ll kind of list them here.

Dr. Josephson then proceeded to discuss three examples: telepathy, the memory of water, and cold fusion, which he was inclined to accept. He then proceeded to discuss Intelligent Design:

So I said at some point this theory looks a bit like theology, and I can imagine intelligent design is real. Intelligent Design is rejected just because it’s part of the scientific culture that it cannot be true, you must not talk about it, but it’s not actually disproved. I think it will turn out that there is a design and that the usual theories are wrong there as well.

Readers can view a slideshow of Dr. Josephson’s talk here. Slides 16, 23, 30 and 31 should be of special interest.

 

2. Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)

 

(a) Evidence that Professor Richard Smalley was opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution

You want proof that Professor Richard Smalley was an opponent of evolution? Be my guest. First, in an addressthat Dr. Richard Smalley gave at the Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation (October 3, 2004) Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible’s “Genesis”; then he pointed out:

The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.

But wait, there’s more! Smalley also invoked cosmic fine-tuning as a scientific argument for God’s existence, and stated publicly that he had been persuaded on strictly scientific grounds that evolution was impossible.

 

3. Abdus Salam (1926-1996), a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics

 

 

(b) What Ahmadi Muslims believe about evolution

 

Rather than adopting the Darwinist theory of unguided natural selection, Ahmadis promote the supposition of “guided evolution” as being part of the progressive design of God.[3] As such they deny that natural selection occurred purely by chance,[4] or merely by survival of the fittest[5] – and view each stage of the evolutionary process as being selectively and continually woven to an intricate level by one monotheistic creator (Allah).[6]

Furthermore illustrated with scientific theories and Quranic scripture, Ahmadis contend that the processes of life on Earth started from one single point of species (bacteria)[7] with a mixture of water and a viscous clay-like substance.[8] From the source of that one single organism, to the point of the first Prophet Adam (so the Ahmadiyya view) was a slow gradual evolutionary process that occurred over several stages (Lane). Each stage being of a variable timescale – perhaps over billions of years.[9]

Proponents of Ahmadiyya consider that the notion of unguided ‘natural selection’ does not adequately explain how various species that have progressed from the lowest forms to the highest forms have solely depended upon occurrence of random mutations within the gene pool, or purely by the demands of environmental factors. In his book Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth (published 1998), Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the late leader of the Ahmadiyya movement, elaborated the complex mechanism of evolution as having been played more like strategic game of Chess than a game of Dice.[10] Subsequently evolutionary processes could only have been guided by a vastly higher intelligence (God).

 

 

4. Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963.

 

 

1. Eccles is no Darwinian

Darwin might never have written Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) had it not been for the arrival of a paper that shook him to the core – a paper from Alfred Russel Wallace, wherein was set out, in essentials, the very theory of evolution which Darwin had already devised, but had not taken the time to refine and publish. In a flash, Darwin took pen in hand, and hammered out the immortal book that would supersede Wallace’s work. All of this, of course, is but a tiny chapter in the history of science – with which many readers are doubtless familiar. Why mention it here? Well, Eccles calls himself a Darwinian, but actually he’s a Wallacean – and there’s a difference, a big difference between the two views. As Eccles explains, “Wallace felt that human intelligence could only be explained by the direct intervention of Cosmic intelligence” (Eccles, 1989, p. 235). This was a notion Darwin couldn’t stomach. Wallace outraged Darwin by publishing a paper on primitive people (with whom he lived most of his life) in which he declared:

Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but a little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies (Eccles, 1989, p. 235).
The notion that the powers possessed by homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) were created not by mindless processes, but by the Almighty, is one Eccles is quite at home with. Indeed, this book, despite it’s empirical-sounding title, is in many ways a prolegomenon to Christian eschatology.

 

5. Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology

 

Concerning Darwin’s theory of evolution, Chain wrote:

 

“It is, of course, nothing but a truism, and not a scientific theory, to say that living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive.

“To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the 19th century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.

“This hypothesis wilfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

(Chain, 1971, “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Spring 1971, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 367).

 

6. Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945.

 

 

(a) Why Wolfgang Pauli doubted Darwinian evolution: the total absence of probability calculations rendering the theory plausible

Few people are aware that Pauli was highly skeptical of Darwinian evolution, openly questioning the orthodox view that random mutations, culled by natural selection, were sufficient to explain the diversity of life-forms we see today. Pauli regarded Darwinian evolution as an implausible mechanism for evolution, on purely mathematical grounds. In place of Darwinian evolution, Pauli advocated a kind of directed evolution.

Evidence of Pauli’s skepticism has been documented in section 7.1 of an article by Harald Atmanspacher and Hans Primas, entitled, Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science (Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, 5-50, 2006), from which I shall quote an excerpt. The italics in the quotes below are Pauli’s:

…Before the advent of molecular biology in the 1940s, the mainstream position with respect to biological evolution was referred to by the term Modern Synthesis. A key concept of this position was that the genetic variation within a population arises by random mutations, not by adaptively directed mutations and recombinations (Mayr 1982). Pauli was not convinced that the evolution of life could be explained by random mutations only and questioned this aspect of the Darwinian model of natural evolution:(64)

 

7. Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937), winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics

 

Guglielmo Marconi (1874 – 1937) was an Italian inventor, who is often called the father of long distance radio transmission. He was also famous for his development of Marconi’s law and a radio telegraph system. Marconi shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics with Karl Ferdinand Braun “in recognition of their contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy.”

Marconi explicitly stated his belief that science would never be able to solve the problem of the origin of life, while giving a speech in a public forum, in 1934. This fact alone makes him an Intelligent Design advocate, at the very least, and possibly a creationist.

Concerning the problem of the origin of life and the failure of science to solve it, Marconi declared:

“The mystery of life is certainly the most persistent problem ever placed before the mind of man. There is no doubt that from the time humanity began to think, it has occupied itself with the problem of its origin and its future – which is undoubtedly the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is absolute. This would be truly frightening, if it were not for faith.”
(Marconi, Guglielmo. 1934. From a scientific address to the International Congress of Electro-Radio Biology. September 10. Venice, Italy.) (Emphases mine – VJT.)

You may say that 1934 is a long time ago, Zack. Fair enough. But you wanted Nobel Laureates, and I’ve already given you seven. Now I’m going to give you two more names, of scientists who espoused either Intelligent Design or creationism, and who may well have been denied a Nobel Prize for “political” reasons.

 

 

 

 

Више о овој теми на http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[VaSa110]

  On 26. 11. 2016. at 17:59, о.Горан рече

.......јер је страшно колико су људима испрани мозгови........

Expand  

Da zaista je strašno, potpuno se slažem. Još strašnije je kad se ne upotrebljavaju.

[cloudking]

Celkaj, cekaj.. ti u stvari zelis da pokazes kako je kreacionizam tacan time sto navodis naucnike, ljude "od naucnog autoriteta" koji su bili pristalice te ideje? Iako si u stanju da prikupis jedva pregrst tih imena, ti ti time dokazujes nedoslednost TE?

 

Pa sto odma ne kazes!

 

Evo idem odma da ti napravim spisak naucnika koji ne veruju u boga... al moraces malo da sacekas posto za razliku od krecionistickih naucnika koji mogu da stanu u blokce, za spisak naucnika koji ne veruju u boga bice mi potrebno mnooogo vremena i blokcica, jer ih ima stotine hiljada.

 

Kazi mi, hocu li ja tim spiskom dati finalni dokaz da boga nema, da je religija gubljenje vremena a da je teologija izmisljena nauka?

 

PS. Izvini sto ce ostanes bez posla zbog mene sad...

[cloudking]

  On 28. 11. 2016. at 10:09, о.Горан рече

Имамо и позитивних примера као што су следећи...

Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution

 

1. Nobel Laureate and Intelligent Design proponent: Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973)

 

 

Evidence that Dr. Brian Josephson is an Intelligent Design supporter

“OK, so where’s your proof that Brian Josephson is an Intelligent Design advocate?” I hear you ask. Happy to oblige. Dr. Josephson professed his belief in a version of Intelligent Design in a lecture that he delivered to the Cambridge Physics Society on March 5, 2008, entitled, “A Critical Point for Science?” Here’s a quote from the abstract:

Current physics implicitly assumes matter is fundamental, life and mentality being secondary. There are reasons for thinking that such a picture may be incomplete, leading to error. This lecture describes a new conceptual foundation that reverses the order of things, making life and mentality more basic than matter.

Life and Mind are more basic than matter! Sounds promising. But wait – it gets better. Towards the end of his lecture, Dr. Josephson talked about some taboo ideas which he hoped would become a part of science, one day:

You could say what I’ve been proposing is an extension of science because mind has been added, a whole new thing is added into the picture, and some ideas as to how to handle it, but they’re not the usual equations, they’re rather complicated ideas like attractors and information processors, and of course quantum theory regards information as fundamental as well, so there may be lots of links with conventional science. Well that would lead I think to taboo ideas becoming a part of science, not a respectable part, but a reluctantly accepted part, because they would come nicely out of this picture, so I guess I’ll kind of list them here.

Dr. Josephson then proceeded to discuss three examples: telepathy, the memory of water, and cold fusion, which he was inclined to accept. He then proceeded to discuss Intelligent Design:

So I said at some point this theory looks a bit like theology, and I can imagine intelligent design is real. Intelligent Design is rejected just because it’s part of the scientific culture that it cannot be true, you must not talk about it, but it’s not actually disproved. I think it will turn out that there is a design and that the usual theories are wrong there as well.

Readers can view a slideshow of Dr. Josephson’s talk here. Slides 16, 23, 30 and 31 should be of special interest.

 

2. Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)

 

(a) Evidence that Professor Richard Smalley was opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution

You want proof that Professor Richard Smalley was an opponent of evolution? Be my guest. First, in an addressthat Dr. Richard Smalley gave at the Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation (October 3, 2004) Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible’s “Genesis”; then he pointed out:

The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.

But wait, there’s more! Smalley also invoked cosmic fine-tuning as a scientific argument for God’s existence, and stated publicly that he had been persuaded on strictly scientific grounds that evolution was impossible.

 

3. Abdus Salam (1926-1996), a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics

 

 

(b) What Ahmadi Muslims believe about evolution

 

Rather than adopting the Darwinist theory of unguided natural selection, Ahmadis promote the supposition of “guided evolution” as being part of the progressive design of God.[3] As such they deny that natural selection occurred purely by chance,[4] or merely by survival of the fittest[5] – and view each stage of the evolutionary process as being selectively and continually woven to an intricate level by one monotheistic creator (Allah).[6]

Furthermore illustrated with scientific theories and Quranic scripture, Ahmadis contend that the processes of life on Earth started from one single point of species (bacteria)[7] with a mixture of water and a viscous clay-like substance.[8] From the source of that one single organism, to the point of the first Prophet Adam (so the Ahmadiyya view) was a slow gradual evolutionary process that occurred over several stages (Lane). Each stage being of a variable timescale – perhaps over billions of years.[9]

Proponents of Ahmadiyya consider that the notion of unguided ‘natural selection’ does not adequately explain how various species that have progressed from the lowest forms to the highest forms have solely depended upon occurrence of random mutations within the gene pool, or purely by the demands of environmental factors. In his book Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth (published 1998), Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the late leader of the Ahmadiyya movement, elaborated the complex mechanism of evolution as having been played more like strategic game of Chess than a game of Dice.[10] Subsequently evolutionary processes could only have been guided by a vastly higher intelligence (God).

 

 

4. Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963.

 

 

1. Eccles is no Darwinian

Darwin might never have written Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) had it not been for the arrival of a paper that shook him to the core – a paper from Alfred Russel Wallace, wherein was set out, in essentials, the very theory of evolution which Darwin had already devised, but had not taken the time to refine and publish. In a flash, Darwin took pen in hand, and hammered out the immortal book that would supersede Wallace’s work. All of this, of course, is but a tiny chapter in the history of science – with which many readers are doubtless familiar. Why mention it here? Well, Eccles calls himself a Darwinian, but actually he’s a Wallacean – and there’s a difference, a big difference between the two views. As Eccles explains, “Wallace felt that human intelligence could only be explained by the direct intervention of Cosmic intelligence” (Eccles, 1989, p. 235). This was a notion Darwin couldn’t stomach. Wallace outraged Darwin by publishing a paper on primitive people (with whom he lived most of his life) in which he declared:

Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but a little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies (Eccles, 1989, p. 235).
The notion that the powers possessed by homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) were created not by mindless processes, but by the Almighty, is one Eccles is quite at home with. Indeed, this book, despite it’s empirical-sounding title, is in many ways a prolegomenon to Christian eschatology.

 

5. Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology

 

Concerning Darwin’s theory of evolution, Chain wrote:

 

“It is, of course, nothing but a truism, and not a scientific theory, to say that living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive.

“To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the 19th century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.

“This hypothesis wilfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

(Chain, 1971, “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Spring 1971, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 367).

 

6. Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945.

 

 

(a) Why Wolfgang Pauli doubted Darwinian evolution: the total absence of probability calculations rendering the theory plausible

Few people are aware that Pauli was highly skeptical of Darwinian evolution, openly questioning the orthodox view that random mutations, culled by natural selection, were sufficient to explain the diversity of life-forms we see today. Pauli regarded Darwinian evolution as an implausible mechanism for evolution, on purely mathematical grounds. In place of Darwinian evolution, Pauli advocated a kind of directed evolution.

Evidence of Pauli’s skepticism has been documented in section 7.1 of an article by Harald Atmanspacher and Hans Primas, entitled, Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science (Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, 5-50, 2006), from which I shall quote an excerpt. The italics in the quotes below are Pauli’s:

…Before the advent of molecular biology in the 1940s, the mainstream position with respect to biological evolution was referred to by the term Modern Synthesis. A key concept of this position was that the genetic variation within a population arises by random mutations, not by adaptively directed mutations and recombinations (Mayr 1982). Pauli was not convinced that the evolution of life could be explained by random mutations only and questioned this aspect of the Darwinian model of natural evolution:(64)

 

7. Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937), winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics

 

Guglielmo Marconi (1874 – 1937) was an Italian inventor, who is often called the father of long distance radio transmission. He was also famous for his development of Marconi’s law and a radio telegraph system. Marconi shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics with Karl Ferdinand Braun “in recognition of their contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy.”

Marconi explicitly stated his belief that science would never be able to solve the problem of the origin of life, while giving a speech in a public forum, in 1934. This fact alone makes him an Intelligent Design advocate, at the very least, and possibly a creationist.

Concerning the problem of the origin of life and the failure of science to solve it, Marconi declared:

“The mystery of life is certainly the most persistent problem ever placed before the mind of man. There is no doubt that from the time humanity began to think, it has occupied itself with the problem of its origin and its future – which is undoubtedly the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is absolute. This would be truly frightening, if it were not for faith.”
(Marconi, Guglielmo. 1934. From a scientific address to the International Congress of Electro-Radio Biology. September 10. Venice, Italy.) (Emphases mine – VJT.)

You may say that 1934 is a long time ago, Zack. Fair enough. But you wanted Nobel Laureates, and I’ve already given you seven. Now I’m going to give you two more names, of scientists who espoused either Intelligent Design or creationism, and who may well have been denied a Nobel Prize for “political” reasons.

 

 

 

 

Више о овој теми на http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expand  

 

Jel ti kapiras da  u 99% svojih postova navodis naucnike koji su ziveli pre vise od jednog veka?  

 

Dobri su ti dokazi pope. jel imas nekog naucnika  iz kamenog doba koji ne veruje u evoluciju? Posto ti spiskovi malo mrsavi pa da ih podebljamo malo  

[о.Горан]

  On 28. 11. 2016. at 10:47, cloudking рече

 

Jel ti kapiras da  u 99% svojih postova navodis naucnike koji su ziveli pre vise od jednog veka?  

 

Expand  

А јел` ти капираш да је ова тема о Нобеловој награди која се додељује више од 100 година- Чак и то што кажеш није тачно: Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), Abdus Salam (1926-1996),  Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996), Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973), Дамадијан је још жив итд.

 

И друго, још битније, да ли капираш да је Порекло врста Дарвин објавио 1859 г., дакле пре 157 година, а у међувремену наука напредовала муњевито...

 

[cloudking]

  On 28. 11. 2016. at 11:26, о.Горан рече

И друго, још битније, да ли капираш да је Порекло врста Дарвин објавио 1859 г., дакле пре 157 година, а у међувремену наука напредовала муњевито...

 

Expand  

 

Odakle ti znas dal je nauka nappredovala kad jos uvek mislis da je TE pogresna?

Da si pratio nauku, znao bi da smo napredovanjem te iste nauke doslo do toga da vise ikakve sumnje nema u TE... zato i ne mozes da nadjes naucnika mladjeg og od 80 godina koji je protivnik TE. Al ok, mozda te zabavlja... neko skuplja markice neko pokemone a ti eto, metuzaleme koje je pregazilo vreme a oni zaboravili da mu se sklone s  puta

 

Ozbiljno, mani se coravog posla... zar ne mislis da vera ima mnogo vecih problem od TE? Bezveze trosite svi energiju na nesto sto ne mozete da pobedite umesto da resavate probleme unutar svoje crkve...

[о.Горан]

https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/nobel-prize-winners-who-believe-in-intelligent-design/