Birds of a Feather Flock Together

Posted 23 August 2006 by Dave Thomas

With all the flap about D. James Kennedy and his "no Darwin, no Hitler" pseudo-documentary (see Pharyngula and Dispatches from the Culture Wars for the sordid details), I was reminded of some incidents that took place three years ago in New Mexico involving D. James Kennedy and the NM chapter of the Intelligent Design Network. In 2003, when New Mexico was in the process of developing new science standards, Kennedy deployed his Center for Reclaiming America's 1500 New Mexican "E-army" members to bombard the NM State Board of Education with letters opposing teaching "evolution only" in the schools. This article fondly mentions the help of IDnet-NM's leader Joe Renick in this effort. The purpose of this post is to show that D. James Kennedy and Joe Renick are integrity-challenged "Birds of a Feather." Since D. J. Kennedy is getting a lot of negative press this week, I'll focus here on Joe Renick, who hired the Zogby Polling Firm for some extremely dubious research that purported to show New Mexican scientists were in favor of teaching ID in schools. A rather large flap ensued, and even the heads of Sandia and Los Alamos Labs entered the fray. When the dust settled, Renick promised to stop using the poll. That was over three years ago. However, as of August 22nd, 2006, Renick's group is still using those bogus Zogby polling results. Three years of broken IDnet promises. I'm shocked - shocked! As discussed in the NMSR article (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!, Renick's group commissioned Zogby to poll New Mexican parents and scientists on teaching ID in school in 2003. When Renick made the stunning announcement that

In regard to teaching intelligent design, parents and laboratory scientists favored teaching intelligent design by an overwhelming factor of 5-to-1. ...,

the New Mexican science community smelled a rat. And what a rat it was - of the 16,000 Sandia Labs/Los Alamos and academic scientists supposedly polled, only 248 people responded. School board member (and physicist) Dr. Marshall Berman then conducted his own poll of NM's science community, and found that 96% of the 142 scientists who responded never even received the original "poll". Berman discovered the following:

I requested survey data from several hundred scientists at SNL, LANL, UNM, NMSU, and NMT. 61 direct responses were received and 81 indirect (from responders polling their own colleagues and peers). Of these 142 responses, 137 (96%) never received the ID poll. Not a single Sandia scientist or employee acknowledged receiving the survey. One LANL scientist received the e-mail survey and replied in opposition to ID; one other LANL engineer was said to have received the survey (indirect). Two people from NMSU and one from UNM said they received the survey and replied negatively. So of the five scientists who received the survey, all of them opposed ID. Yet IDnet-NM reports an ID approval rate of 76-79% for "NM scientists" and 45-61% for "NM Universities." ... it is quite clear that IDnet-NM selected the people to be polled and provided those email addresses to Zogby.

Normally the heads of Sandia and Los Alamos Labs are reluctant to dip even a toe into the pond of Public Opinion. But this incident was too egregious to let pass, and the presidents of both labs publicly condemned the Zogby poll as "a bogus mini-survey" (Sandia's Dr. Paul Robinson) and "misleading" (Los Alamos's Dr. Peter Nanos). On August 17, 2003, a little over three years ago, science reporter John Fleck wrote in the Albuquerque Journal that

Renick said Friday [August 15th] his organization plans to stop using the poll, saying it is turning into a distraction from the really important business of the science standards.

Well, it's been three years now, and we're still hearing nothing but those darn chirping crickets. To see the Zogby "scientist" poll for yourself, simply click through to the website of The Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico (IDnet-NM), and look down the menu on the left side of every page for the option labeled Polling Data. While the "scientist response" has been sanitized from the text of that page, it's still there, at the bottom of the page, with a link to New Mexico Poll Results (Word doc. format) Oh, and how did New Mexico's standards turn out? Just fine, as you'll see here, here, and here. None of this has stopped IDnet-NM, the Discovery Institute, or the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ from continuing to misrepresent NM's standards as "ID-friendly." There's a lot more about that in The Lie: "New Mexico's Science Standards embrace the Intelligent Design Movement's 'Teach the Controversy' Approach".

49 Comments

Mephisto · 24 August 2006

It's stuff like this that is contributing to the unfortunately increasing perception that there are a growing number of scientists who question the existence of evolution. That, more than anything, undermines public confidence in the science: after all, it gives them this utterly misguided impression of a band of fearless and revolutionary thinkers who are overturning the stale and dogmatic consensus. As we all know, that is absolutely not the case.

What's to be done, what's to be done...

Flint · 24 August 2006

It is not possible to be a creationist and be honest at the same time. Never has been, never will be. Creationism is based on a falsehood, and must be defended with falsehoods. When Making Stuff Up is the one and only avenue to the Truth, why are we indignant that creationists make stuff up?

Mark · 24 August 2006

In their own delusional, 'true believer syndrome' sort of way, I'm sure that they don't think they are being dishonest. They just don't have the ability to think critically. I think that this is why they are so interested in messing with children's minds. They realise that if kids are taught to reason, they will be more likely to reject creationism, and religion in general.

If they can't get science in public schools watered down sufficiently, I guess their next step will be to get rid of public schools altogether, using their influence in government. They will consider that they have 'won' when most schooling becomes private, and curricula is in accordance with the Bible. But it will be a hollow victory, as it will hobble the nation's ability to compete at an international level.

All we can do it seems is to keep fighting for school science standards, and for public school funding.

But hey, if it gets really bad, you'd all be welcome in the UK, where as far as I know, such problems don't exist at all.

Michael Suttkus, II · 24 August 2006

They don't look at it as children being taught to reason, but as children being taught to doubt. Where belief is a virtue, doubt is a sin.

Frank J · 24 August 2006

It is not possible to be a creationist and be honest at the same time.
— Flint

In their own delusional, 'true believer syndrome' sort of way, I'm sure that they don't think they are being dishonest.
— Mark

I just don't know why everyone insists on attaching the same "creationist" label to the scammed and scammers. The former are mostly honest but confused, while the latter are mostly deliberately bearing false witness. The most charitable think one can say about the scammers (professional anti-evolutionists) is that they honestly think that the "masses", like children, need to take fairy tales literally to behave. What makes ID more "pure scam" than classic creationism is that its promoters let the audience infer its fairy tales. They cleverly avoid calling attention to the flaws and contradictions in the various creationist accounts, because they are acutely aware of them.

Anonymous_Coward · 24 August 2006

They will consider that they have 'won' when most schooling becomes private, and curricula is in accordance with the Bible.

Are Protestant private schools more common than Catholic private schools in the US? There's still hope if the private schools are largely Catholic, as they seem to be in Australia (but I'm oblivious to this).

But it will be a hollow victory, as it will hobble the nation's ability to compete at an international level.

Certainly, the PRC and India would love the side effects of the decline of the US's technical competence. And Australia would benefit from being the PRC's bitch, like it is now with its massive steel imports and the inevitable discussions revolving around its natural uranium deposits.

But hey, if it gets really bad, you'd all be welcome in the UK, where as far as I know, such problems don't exist at all.

Too far from Asia to reap the economical benefits of a crippled US. Although, Australia's not that good since we have Indonesia between us and Asia.

Collin DuCrane · 24 August 2006

Raising Haekel?

From wikipedia, keyword "Haekel"

"Although best known for the famous statement "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", he also coined many words commonly used by biologists today, such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology. Haeckel also stated that "politics is applied biology", a quote used by various Nazis. The Nazi party used not only Haeckel's quotes, but also Haeckel's justifications for racism, nationalism and social Darwinism.
...
He extrapolated a new religion or philosophy called monism from evolutionary science. In monism, which postulates that all aspects of the world form an essential unity, all economics, politics, and ethics are reduced to "applied biology". His writings and lectures on monism were later used to provide scientific (or quasi-scientific) justifications for racism, nationalism, and social Darwinism"

The tragic lesson here might be the abuse of ideas for political gain, elevating the phenomenom of adaptabilty not just to the level of a bio-genesis but even attempting to usurp the Mercy Seat reserved for our divine creator.

Hilter did not need Darwin or Haekel to consider himself "The Father". All he needed was delusions of grandeur, which abound to this day. Falling away from God causes these delusions. Apostasty is a growing moral entropy that will continue right to the end (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)

The good news? Turning back to God is easier than turning away. Use your moral compass, and do not condemn anyone, especially yourself.

One last comment on the nature of trolls. The following is from Danish Ballad of Eline of Villenskov:

"Out then spake the tinyest Troll,
No bigger than an emmet was he,
Hither is come a Christian man,
And manage him will I surelie"

If anyone ever calls you a troll for confessing your faith, this ancient wisdom will reveal a tiny troll pointing a finger at you. Perhaps this explains the mocking gargoyles adorning so many churches.

Anonymous_Coward · 24 August 2006

The good news? Turning back to God is easier than turning away. Use your moral compass, and do not condemn anyone, especially yourself.

I turned my back from God (not really, since I don't think it exists) since the day I was conceived. I have no urge to kill anyone, let alone a whole culture. You must be thinking of those who aren't born with moral compasses: religious people.

mark · 24 August 2006

The tragic lesson here might be the abuse of ideas for political gain
— Collin

So, humans use ideas for their own, sometimes selfish, benefit. So what? A theory is amoral; it's neither good or bad, but simply an explanation of a natural phenomena. Science is not about the people, it's about the ideas! Is that really so difficult for you to understand? And we've all heard the "people who reject God want to be gods themselves" nonsense. Every atheist I know is happy just being a human, one of many animals which share this planet. Do you not see that you're the one with delusions of grandeur, by thinking that your all powerful creator is looking out for you personally? And your use of the word 'apostasy' is wrong. Many atheists never possessed a religious faith to abandon, and they certainly haven't abandoned their principles and causes.

George · 24 August 2006

Most creationists I knew back home (Tennessee) were definitely in the "scammed" category. Most of them were surprised when I told them that ToE doesn't include the statement "therefore God doesn't exist." And then they started thinking.

The good news? Turning back to God is easier than turning away. Use your moral compass, and do not condemn anyone, especially yourself.

So are you scammed or scammer, Colin? The latter I think, based on what I've seen you write here. We often forget that most people haven't a clue about or any interest in biology or evolution. 'Til I told him otherwise, my brother-in-law thought that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, and he's an accountant! Just too many monster films and no biology classes in secondary school.

Flint · 24 August 2006

DuCrane illustrates something important: What matters is intent. If evidence doesn't fulfill intent, make something up. If science fails, redefine science. If coherency doesn't work, babble. But whatever you do, preach, preach, preach! Faith is the goal. Comprehension, understanding, rationality, these are the enemies of faith.

(DuCrane also illustrates that the actual topic is irrelevant. To the creationist, all topics have the same answer. If the answer isn't relevant, the topic must be wrong!)

Collin DuCrane · 24 August 2006

Mark,

"So What?"

As I quoted previously in comment #122404:

'In monism, which postulates that all aspects of the world form an essential unity, all economics, politics, and ethics are reduced to "applied biology"'
- wikipedia.org (keyword "Haekel")

All athiest systems of belief collaspe into monism - the most vile religion ever to scar the conscience of mankind.

Worshipping religion rather than a divine creator is idolatry, an apostatsy, and an infidelity.

Religion never saved anyone, and truly has claimed many victims. Only Jesus saves.

Sam · 24 August 2006

@#122440

God never saved anyone either (Jesus to you Christians)--after all where is the evidence? Oh yeah, there is none...

And how do you worship a nonexistant entity? Well you worship the religion based around the nonexistant entity, therefore you too, Collin, as all religious do, worship a false idol.

Michael Suttkus, II · 24 August 2006

Newsflash for Collin Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, monism, or anything of the sort. Many of here, myself included, debunk your simplistic world by simply not being atheists, despite being fully cognizant of the fact and undeniability of evolution and common descent. Besides, Hitler wasn't a monist, whatever Wikipedia says. He was killing people for God, remember?

Evolution does not require the nonexistance of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistance of God more than they fear God Himself. ~ Keith Doyle

mark · 24 August 2006

Collin, are you for real? The concept of monism can be used to describe most ways of thinking, including Christianity.

"Atheist belief systems"? You mean, believing in what we can perceive, and discarding that of which there is no proof? What's wrong with that?

you said: "Worshipping religion rather than a divine creator is idolatry, an apostatsy, and an infidelity. Religion never saved anyone, and truly has claimed many victims. Only Jesus saves." *

So you're a Christian? Isn't Christianity a religion?

And as you seem to like using the word apostasy, please learn to spell it (hint: it only has one 't').

* hey, you may win an award at FSTDT for that!

Corkscrew · 24 August 2006

If anyone ever calls you a troll for confessing your faith, this ancient wisdom will reveal a tiny troll pointing a finger at you.

Fortunately I don't think anyone here was calling you a troll for professing your faith. Otherwise there wouldn't be people of faith on PT. Making daft arguments and not staying around to defend them from responses, though? That'll get you labelled a troll straight off.

Kristine · 24 August 2006

Are Protestant private schools more common than Catholic private schools in the US?

The burgeoning trend in the U.S. is homeschooling. This is not always a fundie-driven thing; I have friends who homeschool their children, and more homeschooling parents have been participating in the educational programs offered by local resources. For many liberal parents, it's a chance to raise bi- or trilingual children and shield them from the overbearing commercial advertising and the so-called "hurried child syndrome" that plagues an American childhood.

However, busloads of homeschooled kids of a certain religious demographic are driven to these hideous "talks" given by Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc., and they're being taken on "geological walks" by self-appointed hucksters, who use the Grand Canyon to teach about the Flood, or make an example of the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens to "prove" a young earth, etc. Truly depressing, that!

Coin · 24 August 2006

Is it okay if I just ditch the "troll" label and call him a spammer?

Sir_Toejam · 24 August 2006

There's still hope if the private schools are largely Catholic, as they seem to be in Australia (but I'm oblivious to this).

it's hardly a war between the protestants and catholic private schools either. take a look at what the NON EVANGENLICAL Lutherans have to say about teaching evolution in their own private schools sometime. Trust me, they have a more pragmatic view on the subject than any catholic school I've ever heard of. Or heck, don't trust me and see what the ELCA had to say itself:

Peters says neither intelligent design nor scientific creationism have fertile research programs that can match Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of evolution. "The Darwinian models have led to progressive research and new knowledge," he says. "They also have proven themselves fertile for predicting what we would find in the fossil record, and for predicting random variation in genes that have led indirectly to research on new medicines. The Lutheran understanding of God's creation leads us to commit ourselves to the best science. ... Nothing less than hard-earned empirical truths about the natural world will measure up."

http://www.thelutheran.org/blog/comments.cfm?blog_id=152 there's more about, but I found this particularly relevant. no, it's really not an issue of catholocism vs. protestantism. it's an issue of those who prefer delusion over reality, and are willing to do anything to maintain those delusions.

Stevaroni · 24 August 2006

Colin wrote; Colin Turning back to God is easier than turning away. Use your moral compass, and do not condemn anyone, especially yourself.

I want to be absolutely clear on your position, because there is an entire spectrum of faith versus science and sometimes it's tough to figure people out from a few comments. It seems that you are in the "If the empirical evidence tells you something which the faith denies, then the empirical evidence is wrong" camp. This is distinct from the "The empirical evidence and the faith do not agree, we must examine them and figure out how they fit together" camp. I am assuming, that for you, if the evidence and the Bible disagree, then the evidence is wrong (there is no "till proven otherwise", because the Bible is not wrong). Have I characterized your position correctly, or do I misunderstand?

Ken Baggaley · 24 August 2006

"Turning back to God is easier than turning away"

Not thinking is easier than thinking.

What's your point?

Sir_Toejam · 24 August 2006

Not thinking is easier than thinking

it is? going pedantic for a moment... I suppose one could make the argument that a autonomic response is easier than one derived from a thought process, but is not thinking deliberately an easy thing to do? ever tried it? It's pretty hard to force oneself to literally "stop" thinking. I tried it myself as an experiment once; spent some time at a zen temple. got hit with the stick too much. nope, not an easy thing to do at all.

Darth Robo · 24 August 2006

Mark said:

"But hey, if it gets really bad, you'd all be welcome in the UK, where as far as I know, such problems don't exist at all."

I dunno, I heard about this maybe a year ago (it's dated 2002):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm

Hopefully there aren't too many schools like that here with us, but I'm sure I've heard of at least one more, I just can't remember where I heard it. If I ever find the link I'll post it.

Sir_Toejam said:

"It's pretty hard to force oneself to literally "stop" thinking."

Not for Collin, it seems.

Collin DuCrane · 24 August 2006

Since I seem to be under the panda's thumb, I shall endeavour to respond in "the spirit of good conversation".

And the topics are:
Comment #122406 - killing people
Comment #122421 - delusions of grandeur
Comment #122425 - scammers
Comment #122435 - enemies of faith
Comment #122445 - false idols
Comment #122448 - father of monism
Comment #122449 - christianity as a religion
Comment #122464 - trolls
Comment #122472 - trolls & spammers
Comment #122495 - biblical vs scientific evidence
Comment #122497 - thinking vs not thinking about God

Looking these over, I get a pretty good profile of the objections to my little post. Surprisingly, the above profile fits pretty well with what Jesus had to say about religion. He was anti-religion. That is why his followers were called apostles, meaning rebels.

He characterized religion as a 'fence' around the truth. People are naturally attracted to the truth and tend to circle around it at a distance, preventing anyone from getting too close, because in the truth is great power.

Jesus is not a set of rules about the truth. He cannot be circled or contained in any sense - only joined or rejected.

As C.S. Lewis put it:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Sir_Toejam · 24 August 2006

Is it okay if I just ditch the "troll" label and call him a spammer?

nope. direct reference and acknowledgement of response puts him squarely in the "troll" category, though there is the preachy-spam aspect as well. a troll with spam commentary?

Steviepinhead · 24 August 2006

"Troll with spam."

What are those little fish that come in the flat tins you used to open with the turnkeys? Pickled herring?

Something along those lines anyway--generic lowest-common-denominator el-cheapo troll-lite.

Bleh. Now we'll probably get the fisher-of-men reference (women got the weir?)...

The funniest thing is how danged "original" these drolly-predictable mangled-meme-spouting clones are always convinced that they are.

DragonScholar · 24 August 2006

Jesus is not a set of rules about the truth. He cannot be circled or contained in any sense - only joined or rejected.
— Colin Du Crane

Here I think we see another common tactic used on the creationist end, here in a religious context - the false choice. I for instance, just analyze Jesus and associated phenomena, which isn't joining him or rejecting him.

Collin DuCrane · 24 August 2006

http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg

Dave Thomas · 24 August 2006

Surely there are religion boards where commenters can discuss the merits of various religions. Panda's Thumb isn't one of them. What IS PT for?

The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.

If your purpose is instead to argue against any and all religions different from your own, click here to avail yourself of that type of discourse. But, PLEASE, don't bait people here on the thumb with off-topic religious rants. If you'd like to rant about D. James Kennedy, or Kennedy's claims that without Darwin, there never would have been Hitler, or about Joe Renick's misuses of a severely un-scientific poll, or about Zogby's involvement in that poll, or about Renick's failure to keep his promise "not to use the poll any more," that's fine. If you insist on turning PT into a sectarian battlefield, please take it somewhere else, or I will be forced to send you to the Bathroom Wall. You wouldn't like the Bathroom Wall. It's messy and cluttered in there. Collin, you have been warned. The rest of you, PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS, or you'll be sent to keep Collin company in detention. Dave (PT moderator for this post, and the one with the Key to the Bathroom Wall)

Steviepinhead · 24 August 2006

Now what's the problem?

You don't like chicken pot pie?

mark · 24 August 2006

OK, Dave. I'll take this stale bread home with me. It's just so hard to refuse their attention seeking when they look up at you with those stupidly vacant cow-eyes...

Collin DuCrane · 24 August 2006

Actually the bathroom here at pandasthumb.org is much nicer than the one over at uncommondescent.com ;)

Sir_Toejam · 24 August 2006

that's true, at UD the "bathroom" consists of a bottomless pit.

Collin DuCrane · 24 August 2006

True, the only redeeming quality is getting to watch DS try to clean it.

mark · 24 August 2006

Oh, and Darth Robo, I remember the Emmanuel College story as well. Wikipedia has more about the Foundation behind it.

Their academic record sounds generally good (albeit at the expense of dissenting pupils, it seems), but this statement by their head is disturbing:

"To teach children that they are developed mutations who evolved from something akin to a monkey as a result of a cataclysmic chemical accident and that death is the end of everything is hardly going to engender within them a sense of purpose, self-worth and respect. To present, however, the Truth that they were made by a loving and just God who sees every one of them as being of equal and real value and capable of achieving their best, and to speak of the life beyond death, creates an altogether more positive sense of responsibility, accountability and direction."

It would be interesting to see how many of their graduates go on to have a career in science.

It *is* the only creationist/education story I've heard about in the UK, but the government has shown that it looks favourably on such public-private partnerships (aka privatisation-lite) in the health sector, so things could change in the future. Unless we vote Liberal ;-)

mark · 24 August 2006

Okay, last post on this, but for those who are interested, here's a 2005 Guardian article which is a lot more disturbing.

Truly, unless we (in the UK) want to end up with a public education system like that of the US, Blair has to go.

Henry J · 24 August 2006

Frank J,
Re "I just don't know why everyone insists on attaching the same "creationist" label to the scammed and scammers."

Maybe because both spread the same arguments?

Henry

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2006

But hey, if it gets really bad, you'd all be welcome in the UK, where as far as I know, such problems don't exist at all.

Do a Google for "Vardy Foundation".

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2006

Only Jesus saves

But ID isn't about religion. No sirree Bob. It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say so. (snicker) (giggle) This is why I love fundies so much. They KNOW, absolutely KNOW, that every time they preach, they loe in court. So what do they do? Yep --- they preach anyway. I thank God that fundies are so unalterably stupid.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2006

I tried it myself as an experiment once; spent some time at a zen temple. got hit with the stick too much.

Shoulda stopped "trying". (grin)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2006

Hopefully there aren't too many schools like that here with us, but I'm sure I've heard of at least one more

Go to: http://www.blackshadow.co.uk/

Stuart Weinstein · 24 August 2006

Colin wrote :

"Only Jesus saves"

But Moses invests.

Sir_Toejam · 24 August 2006

Shoulda stopped "trying".

well, that was exactly my point eh? It's not so easy, and you should know.

mark · 24 August 2006

Thanks for the links, Lenny. Looks like the cancer's been detected. I hope the people at BlackShadow can combat it!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2006

Thanks for the links, Lenny. Looks like the cancer's been detected. I hope the people at BlackShadow can combat it!

Well, for all you Brits out there, they could, uh, use some help. ;)

Darth Robo · 25 August 2006

"Well, for all you Brits out there, they could, uh, use some help."

Got that right.

Ken Baggaley · 25 August 2006

"Not thinking is easier than thinking"
"it is?"

Yes. Critically thinking about things is harder than accepting them without challenge. Pretty obvious, really.

To the original point, it's easier to stop asking, then to keep looking. And the key to science is pretty much "keep looking'.

Anonymous_Coward · 28 August 2006

Yes. Critically thinking about things is harder than accepting them without challenge. Pretty obvious, really. To the original point, it's easier to stop asking, then to keep looking. And the key to science is pretty much "keep looking'.

It depends. As a long-time self-described "critical thinker", I find it very very hard to accept anything without challenge. If people tell me that I don't need to look further, I'm almost reactionary in trying to do the exact opposite. My example is obviously moot given the context, of course. Blind belief is quite easy among those who were told that a literal reading of a 1000+ year old book is all the knowledge you'll ever need. Blind belief is amazingly difficult among skeptics.

Michael Suttkus, II · 28 August 2006

Everytime a commercial comes on that makes a stupid claim (which is, I suppose, most of them), I start griping about bad logic and ridiculing the idiocy.

A 200 dollar value, yours for only $75! Not sold in stores!

Okay, so it's a $200 value... where? If it's not sold in stores, and the only way you can get it is through this commercial, in what parallel earth is it a 200 dollar value? They're just making up numbers.

Makes you smell like a man.

I thought that's what you wore cologne to prevent.

After a particularly inspired gripe fest, my brother turns to me and says, "Have you ever thought your life might be less painful if you just stopped thinking about things?"

Well, I hadn't really, but he has a point. Every newscast, every stupid article I run into online, is an exercise in masochism to experience. Don't even get me started on having to get through the room when Dad's listening to Limbaugh or Faux News.

There are times it would be a lot easier not to think.