Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Martin Gardner, Fundamentalism, and Adam’s Navel

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The enormously influential mathematics and science writer, skeptic, and encourager of many, Martin Gardner, has died at the age of 95. I came to know Gardner through a mutual friend, the late science writer and skeptic Bob Schadewald (1943-2000), who occasionally visited Gardner at the latter’s home in North Carolina. [Here’s a tiny but relevant fact that shows the surprising reticulations of the science-and-theology debate in America. During one such visit, Gardner gave Schadewald much of the contents of his library, which he found had grown unwieldy. Then, years later, following the devastating fire that destroyed nearly all of YEC paleontologist Kurt Wise’s library, Schadewald packed much of his personal library into boxes to send to Kurt. Schadewald died a few days later, at nearly the same time his books arrived at Kurt’s home in Tennessee. Kurt unpacked the books, carefully wrapped in tissue, in tears, knowing that the person who sent them had just died. So, chances are, at least some of Martin Gardner’s personal library now resides with Kurt Wise. Go figure.] Schadewald told Gardner about this crazy YEC philosophy of science graduate student he knew, at the University of Chicago, and in response, Gardner sent back a letter to me.

He wanted to know if Adam had a navel. (More about that below.)

It is not generally known that Gardner grew up as a Christian fundamentalist in Oklahoma, and indeed entered the University of Chicago as an undergraduate zealous to defend his faith, and to return America to its Christian heritage:

In his adolescent fantasies he saw himself as chosen by the Lord to lead this new awakening. And to carry out this stupendous undertaking he conceived a brazen plan….He would enter the very citadel of the enemy. He would master all the science and modern learning that a great secular university had to offer. Every false and infernal argument would be examined and exposed. He would probe the diseased heart of twentieth century theology, dissect it nerve by nerve, artery by artery.

The passage comes from Gardner’s autobiographical novel, The Flight of Peter Fromm (1973), which Bill Dembski has used as a textbook in seminary courses he’s taught. While Gardner’s fundamentalist Christianity died a long and painful death, his theism never did. See his fascinating and utterly readable The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (1983), where Gardner vigorously defends his fideistic conception of God, as well as his belief in the efficacy of prayer, and personal immortality.

It’s hard to say where Gardner would have stood in the current New Atheists versus Accomodationists debates. While he loathed woolly-minded, fuzzy and imprecise thinking, suspecting it of concealing (deliberately, perhaps) deep confusions — and such thinking is much on display among many defenders of “theistic evolution” — he also disdained the imperialistic and often inhumane reductionism of scientific materialism. I like to think, if Gardner had been found the strength for another decade, or two, of writing and thinking, he would have drafted a book challenging the New Atheists. Heck, why not. He refused to fit into anyone’s categories.

In the mid-1980s, when Gardner asked me about Adam’s navel, I found the question sophomoric, and told him so. Who cares? In what possible scheme of the universe would the existence of a small indentation (or not!) in Adam’s abdomen make the least bit of difference to anything? Now, almost 25 years later, Gardner’s question makes more sense to me, at least as far as its motivation is concerned.

Critics of intelligent design start their reasoning with a model of God and His rationality. The world as we find it must fit with that model. For Gardner, a rational Designer faces a dilemma in making the first human being, if He is creating him de novo. Navel or no navel? The former possibility entails the deceptive appearance of history; the latter leaves Adam looking somehow odd, facing awkward questions from the kids.

Just the sort of question Gardner delighted in asking.

In honor of his memory, let’s give Gardner the last word, from his chapter (in Whys) on immortality:

Lord, remember me! If God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, if every wave and particle is what it is, does what it does, because God remembers it, then we exist now because God remembers us. And if God remembers us after we die, we may continue to exist. That is all a theist need say to establish in his or her heart the possibility of immortality.

Amen.

Comments
I agree with O'Leary, the "appearance of age = deceit" idea is a load of baloney. People are only deceived by appearance of age if they choose to disbelieve what God explicitly said about his creation of Adam, and rely solely on their own insight. If God said, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being," and people look at man and don't believe it, how can they accuse God of being deceptive? As johnnyb said, 'It is *only* when you think a question must be decidable without God does it become “deception” when God does something that is only fully interpretable using God’s revelation.' God even warned against the self-deception (darkening of heart) that would occur for those who refuse to give him due credit -- Romans 1:21-23. It would be like Craig Venter publishing about his insertion of a synthetically-copied genome into a living cell. He has broadcast a public message about how it was created. His paper even details how the descendants of the tinkered cell appear normal, that is, they resemble completely-natural cells in most important respects. Yet some could decide to ignore his personal revelation and look only at the resulting cells. Not allowing "intervention" as a reality or a valid inference in science, they could instead infer that the cells evolved to have "Craig Venter, PhD" inscribed in their genome due to chance and natural selection over millions of years. (Grand would be the speculations over the functional advantage of parts of that sequence.) Then the skeptic sneers at the Venterists... "These cells closely resemble organisms that evolved over millions of years. If Venter did indeed assemble them, why would he do it in such a deceptive way, trying to make everyone think they were completely natural?" Rrrgh.... Why should God pander to people who won't believe what he says? They make a rule that what God says is inadmissible, then complain that what's left is misleading. Reminds me again of the dwarfs at the end of The Last Battle. http://nachfolge.blogspot.com/2009/08/sermon-for-eleventh-sunday-after.htmllars
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Cabal @25: If I were the designer I would cunningly devise it so nobody would need to have a navel. Feel free to do so. The fact that he didn’t doesn’t speak well of his capabilities. The fact that you haven't designed a human yet, nevertheless criticise someone who had because of a superficial feature, doesn't speak well of you either. A human designer would have thought of that and found a solution. All it takes is a just a few base pairs; there are plenty of spares in the genom. I think there is a job for you at the J Craig Venter Institute. You just think of everything and can sort all issues using just a few base pairs. When you present your latest improvements on living creatures do give us an invitation to the press conference. AlexAlex73
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Cabal "If I were the designer . . . " only means that you are not the designer in question. It says nothing about the credibility of inferring from inductively credible signs of design, to presence of design as best explanation. Also, unless you are in a position to know the constraints and to know the purposes, you are in no position to judge the quality of the design. Have you created a reproducing humanoid who does not need a navel, for whatever purpose? In short what you have argued boils down to finding an excuse to object rather than dealing with substantial issues on the merits. GEM of TKI PS: On the behalf of the creationists, the appearance of age is not evidence of deceit on the part of the Creator, especially if there is a context in which there is a testimony from said creator to the true origin. That may mean that projections from the present to the remote past as imagined (especially those that impose the agenda that we may not infer on signs of intelligence to the conclusion that trying to reconstruct the past on blind chance and necessity alone) will be inaccurate, but we read the classic Biblical retort, we have been warned about that:
Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels [a] shouted for joy? 8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?
So, wisdom is to allow all the evidence we may observe to have a voice, including that of empirically reliable signs of intelligence. Further wisdom is to hold our reconstructions of a remote, unobserved past with a due measure of humility, not pretending to a degree of warrant or even certainty that on principles of empirical reasoning, we cannot properly claim.kairosfocus
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
Cabal, I am amazed at the atheists capability to readily assume he can design a human body better than God. Have you ever designed a single novel protein in your garage and inserted it into life? Has anyone ever done so anywhere? A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385 Thus cabal since not even one novel functional protein has been generated by man should you not take a bit more humble approach in your grand claims of being a better designer than God? And frankly I'm fed up with evolutionists telling our kids how terribly made and worthless they are. Maybe you guys could learn something from this guy cabal. The most inspirational video you will ever see — Nick Vujicic http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=18d5fe4e6dcf04df1865 Attitude; Attitude is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education than money, than circumstances, than failures, than success, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company.a home. a relationship. The remarkable thing is we have a choice, every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for the day. We cannot change our past. We cannot change the fact that other people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90 % how I react to it. - Charles Swindoll Rascal Flatts - Unstoppable [Olympics Mix] http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=a7dba77b4d83eaad6701bornagain77
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
O'Leary,
The umbilicus is not an organ. It is the remnant of the placenta, the organ we all lose at birth, so cunningly devised that the cord falls out after some days, leaving only a winding pit (usually). If I were to design a man or woman from scratch, I would put one in – not to deceive anyone, but simply so they would look like other folk, for their own good.
If I were the designer I would cunningly devise it so nobody would need to have a navel. The fact that he didn't doesn't speak well of his capabilities. A human designer would have thought of that and found a solution. All it takes is a just a few base pairs; there are plenty of spares in the genome.Cabal
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
The umbilicus is not an organ. It is the remnant of the placenta, the organ we all lose at birth, so cunningly devised that the cord falls out after some days, leaving only a winding pit (usually). If I were to design a man or woman from scratch, I would put one in - not to deceive anyone, but simply so they would look like other folk, for their own good. That is, I would never deny that I had designed them from scratch, and would in fact affirm it. But I would insist that they look like other people. Otherwise, they would stand out in the shower room crowd, and frankly, that would be a problem. In the same way, Eve is usually portrayed as having long hair. She would not have had time to grow it. But if it is a cultural feature, as it is in many societies, I would just install it, to prevent any suspicions about Eve's character. (Eve had her problems, but immorality was not one of them.) Now, I do not necessarily subscribe to the anthropology outlined above. How humans came to be human is as much of a mystery as ever, one on which Darwinism has shed darkness, rather than light, in my view. But the "deceit" thing strikes me as nonsense. If God said he was going to make a man and a woman from scratch, I assume he would make persons of adult years who look like the pattern of their species. That would include navels (and long hair), even if the navels were not the outcome of birth and the long hair was not the outcome of many months of patient cultivation. (Anyone familiar with the habits of women will know how much time they typically spend on their hair. )O'Leary
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
and riddick you suddenly have enough faith for a young earth position? Man I am so glad to hear you finally converted to christianity!!!bornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
bevets a better question as to a useful apologetic tool would be to ask, What is required, operating within known laws of physics and principles of quantum mechanics, for Jesus to multiply fish?bornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
In Creation and Time, Hugh Ross cites the miracle at Cana as part of his argument. "Another biblical example sometimes quoted as evidence for appearance of age is Jesus' first public miracle: turning water into wine. The text (John 2:7-10) states, however, that the wine Jesus miraculously made had superb flavor, flavor which in this case did not necessarily come from an acceleration of the aging process. Modern methods exist for measuring the true age of a wine, but taste is not one of them." (p. 54) True enough, taste does not determine the age of a wine, but that misses the point. By definition, wine is the result of an aging process. This fact was not lost on the disciples (see v. 11), but it seems to be lost on Ross and ba77.riddick
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
bornagain77@19 How old were the pieces of fish?bevets
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Well Bevets to probably go much further than I care to on this topic, since we are at least in agreement with the most important fact of all of putting our faith in Christ (can I hear a Amen?), I would only mention in response to your wine example: Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now. —John 2:10 Thus the wine was without blemish. which is exactly my point with Adam. Shoot I would hold that the wine was the best wine to ever touch the face of earth (My apologies to Mogan David 20/20 and Nighttrain) Whereas I look to the earth and the evidence for an ancient age is simply overwhelming (erosion, ancient meteor impacts etc..etc..), and my expectation of perfection and truthfulness from God is just far too great to be swayed by what I consider very unbalanced YEC arguments, especially when the arguments trespass into physics and demand contortions of universal constants. Seeing as Stephen Meyer himself has probably had long discussions with Dr. Nelson on this very topic, I should have known much better than to try to persuade Dr. Nelson otherwise. Be that as it may, we can at take deep satisfaction in the fact that we share a common salvation in Christ which is by far the most important fact of all to be sure about. Hillsong- Lord of Lords - Brooke Fraser http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlqDIfS4O3sbornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
I find the suggestion "then God deceived us" when used to support ANY position sophomoric and irreverent. David Menton notes that the umbilicus entails much more anatomy than the superficial outward appearance. Kurt Wise has suggested looking to the miracles of Jesus. When he created wine -- were the grapes ever stomped? If a scientist were to sample the wine, what would his tests tell him about the wine's age? When he multiplied fish -- were all the pieces part of an actual fish that swam somewhere?bevets
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
I like to think, if Gardner had been found the strength for another decade, or two, of writing and thinking, he would have drafted a book challenging the New Atheists.
Gardner apparently chose to reprint "Why I am not an Atheist" from The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener in his final book as his response to the New Atheism. It does have to be said that fideism like Gardner's, rejecting both empirical and metaphysical arguments for God or religion, is one of the challenges that the New Atheists find easiest to dismiss.anonym
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
What I was saying before is that it's a "chicken and egg" question. If you view the egg as being first, then the appearance of a chicken would to you be the appearance of age. But if you viewed it the opposite way, that the chicken comes first, then the appearance of the chicken would to you be the logical beginning and no "appearance of age". If you were God, which would you perceive as coming first, the chicken or the egg? Hint: God has never been an egg, and he came first. It's really just a matter of perspective.tragic mishap
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Adam with an umbilicus? Then God is a deceiver. Adam with no umbilicus? God is STILL a deceiver — which is why I refused to answer his question.
"We treat God as the police treat a man when he is arrested; whatever He does will be used in evidence against Him." - C.S. Lewistragic mishap
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Adam would only have the appearance of age if you view him as an individual. If rather you viewed the creation of Adam as the creation of humanity, then humanity is a life cycle. It's a circle, and an adult human male is a just a point on the circle and does not automatically imply "age" at all. Of course, if you were looking at it from God's timeless perspective, "age" doesn't exist at all.tragic mishap
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
It's been shown that light can be slowed through different mediums. Is it possible that light can be made somehow to move faster? If so what implications would that have? In other words if light can be shown to be capable of having its speed altered does that mean anything for the assumptions that are made based on that speed?Phaedros
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Dr. Nelson, hopefully together we can personally ask Adam in heaven sometime about his belly button and have a good laugh about the fact we were talking about his navel, or lack thereof, in the first place. Paul Colman - The One Thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgrigf-Ca48bornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
bornagain77, If Adam lacked a navel, God would not -- on the various naive theologies presupposed here -- be absolved of creating with the appearance of age. The umbilicus-free Adam you describe would still appear to be an adult. You seem not to appreciate that the normal adult phenotype of a human male (or female) is entirely indicative of age (i.e., growth and development) As suckerspawn notes, there's no observational difference between an OEC Adam and a YEC Adam. More to the point, however, no answer to Gardner's question would have satisfied him. Adam with an umbilicus? Then God is a deceiver. Adam with no umbilicus? God is STILL a deceiver -- which is why I refused to answer his question. The real problem is the naive theology Gardner presupposed. Nota bene: it is impossible to answer Gardner's question in any verifiable way. That, all by itself, should give one pause.Paul Nelson
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
ba77, How does the OEC Adam differ from the YEC Adam?suckerspawn
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Dr. Nelson, I have to completely disagree with you by the fact that you yourself indeed hold that God created Adam fully formed. (Did Adam have a belly button Dr. Nelson?) If God had indeed created Adam with wear and tear that could be discerned by a observer upon scrutiny then God would have indeed willingly deceived us when he created Adam, and that is simply unacceptable as a position for a Theist to take for God does not lie nor is He the father of lies. Yet if God had recently created the universe fully formed, brand spanking new, as you hold, we would be able to discern that newness upon scrutiny and would not have to visit such drastic contortions upon our physics nor upon our theology! You objected that Adam would appear old to a casual observer (whoever a casual observer might have been at that time since no other human was around), and that that observer might not thought to have closely inquired where this new human came from, bears no weight to the question if God would willingly deceive us with the "appearance of age". Let's take your example of a hypothetical observer Dr. Nelson. He meets Adam and says, "Hey, where did you come from?" Adam says, God just created me! Observer says, yeah right buddy. so they argue and argue back and forth about worn teeth, bald spots, and liver spots, and what not, and finally Adam says, "Hey I know how to prove it to you". and he pulls up his 'What Would Jesus Do' tee-shirt and shows the observer that he does not have a belly button. The observer scratches his head and says, "man that is weirder than the wave/particle duality of the double slit."bornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Mr BA^77, Thanks for the link to the article, very interesting look at scientists combining lab work, field work, and fossil study, with mathematics. I'm not sure why you think it is bad news for evolution, perhaps you could explain that?Nakashima
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
bornagain77 wrote:
The point being is that Adam “appeared brand new” as far as the effects of time are concerned. thus your objection is without relevance to the point being made.
Adult structures in Homo sapiens, such as permanent teeth, normally give evidence of growth patterns indicating a temporal sequence from juvenile to adult. It's not a question of wear and tear, as you argue. If Adam was created de novo as what appeared to be (let's say) a 25 year old male, his entire body would -- to an observer who did not know Adam has just been brought into existence -- give the appearance of age. Thus, Ross and Rana do not avoid the problem of the appearance of age.Paul Nelson
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Just to clarify, I don't think that everyone fits my general categorization (I certainly know OECs and TEs who think that special revelation is superior to general reveltation), but I think that it's a generally true statement, especially of the main proponents of the theory. For more, you might take a look at my blog post, "Almost Believing in Divine Action": http://www.bartlettpublishing.com/site/bartpub/blog/2/entry/281johnnyb
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
I think that the problem is that young-earth creation and divine revelation are intermixed. That is, it is pride and arrogance that says that any answer to any question must be decidable without God's revelation. It is *only* when you think a question must be decidable without God does it become "deception" when God does something that is only fully interpretable using God's revelation. In the YEC view, General Revelation is *supplemental* to Special Revelation. In the OEC view, General Revelation is *equivalent* to Special Revelation, and in the TE view, General Revelation has *priority* over Special Revelation.johnnyb
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
semi-off topic, hot off the press, and extremely bad news for evolutionists: Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth's Oldest Fossils - May 2010 Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats' metabolic period -- and is also seen in ancient rocks -- shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517152520.htmbornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Actually Dr Nelson, if God were to create Adam with the "appearance of age" as you are holding, in the same way that you are holding he did for the the universe, then Adam would have scars, liver spots, worn teeth,, maybe a balding spot,, etc..etc.. The point being is that Adam "appeared brand new" as far as the effects of time are concerned. thus your objection is without relevance to the point being made.bornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
And the appearance of age for Adam, in Ross's and Rana's OEC scenario, is avoided how?Paul Nelson
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Dr. Nelson, the question of if Adam had a belly button is indeed a very important one:,,, Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic & Fossil Evidence For Adam and Eve - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482 ,,,In that the question goes to the very heart of the Young Earth Creationists argument. For me the primary reason the young Earth position fails is that, besides demanding contortions of universal constants, such as the speed of light, that make me recoil in horror at the prospect that God's decree of a physical law would have to be amended as such, the young earth position would also demand of its adherents that they accept that God would create with a appearance of age. That is to say that God would willingly deceive us. Needless to say the thought that God would willingly deceive us with the appearance of age beggars the previous horror I had that God should have to amend what he has decreed for a fundamental law in the first place. Seeing that the the evidence now overwhelmingly supports the old earth creationists model,,, Dr. Hugh Ross PhD. Lectures on "Creation as Science" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1680357583183645446# ,,,And that correct interpretation of scripture does indeed allow for a old earth viewpoint, on top of the fact God exists outside of time (shoot, He created time), I feel that much of Gardner's inner conflict, could have been adverted if he had not felt the Young Earth position so crucial for his belief. So to finish up Gardner's question to you Dr. Nelson, "Did God create Adam with a belly button or not?"bornagain77
May 24, 2010
May
05
May
24
24
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply