The Roots of Willful Ignorance – Guest post on ClearLens

I had the wonderful opportunity to share a post on A Clear Lens, an apologetics, theology, and worldview blog I frequently read. Here’s the first part of the post, which you can find in its entirety on the Clear Lens site.


The other day I was listening to a montage song from the movie God’s Not Dead. It is the song “God’s Not Dead,” interspersed with audio clips from the exchanges between Josh, a Christian freshman in college, and his antagonistic professor. I’ve listened to this several times, but this time, my mind caught on something Josh said.

“It’s easy to dismiss what you don’t understand. Or, what you don’t want to understand.”

 I stopped the track and thought this through, pondering the implications. How many times have we dismissed an idea, person, or cause, without hearing it out and truly understanding the message first?

I remembered a conversation I had with a friend about a year ago about evolution, an issue we disagreed on. The phrase from the movie reminded me of something my friend said: “You’re not really looking at the other side.” Though at the time I argued that I had indeed looked at the other side, I remembered those words long after the conversation had passed. And soon I realized that no, I had not really looked at the other side.

It’s easy to dismiss what you don’t understand.

 Why didn’t I understand this other side to the origins debate? My friend hit the nail on the head: because I hadn’t really looked. Sure, my creationist high school biology textbook had given a basic overview of the evidence correlated with evolution, and explained why it didn’t measure up. And of course I had heard various things about evolution in museums, TV, and just about anywhere science was mentioned in public. But I certainly hadn’t done research on the other side.

Read the rest of the post on!


“We’ve been duped” – Why you should examine the evidence yourself

We've been duped.png

This post is adapted from a speech I prepared for my public speaking course at college. The speech was, of course, directed toward an audience of college students at a public university.


“We’ve been duped!”

How would you respond if I told you that one of your professors had lied to the class about something while they were teaching? Probably you’d be at least a little outraged, right? After all, you paid good money for this class and you are trusting your instructor to tell the truth! Well…what if I said your professor wasn’t intentionally lying to you; they believed what they said was correct. This makes the situation a little more complicated, doesn’t it? What happened was they failed to accurately represent the full range of evidence and perspectives on a crucial topic, thus leaving you with an inaccurate impression of the truth.

According to a Pew Research Center survey of American adults, 66% of individuals believe scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time (1). That figure is higher in college graduates—76%. What does this mean? American adults, especially college students, are unaware of multiple viewpoints in the scientific community on this critical issue.

As students, we are here to learn from our professors and instructors. We have a rightful expectation that what they are teaching should be accurate and balanced. We should also be concerned with the quality of our sources of information, whether that be from the class lectures or what we hear and read outside them.

Because the academic class structure is a prime environment for the misleading of students, you must employ critical thinking and do your own research on important issues. I ask each of you to consider whether you may have been duped and do your own research, seeking out other perspectives and examining the evidence for foundational issues. I’ll explain the situation that causes this misleading, describe what will happen if we don’t research for ourselves, and finally discuss how and when to search out other sides to the story.

I’ll begin by sharing some observations of our problem of confirmation bias.

The Problem: Confirmation Bias

The academic classroom setting is an often-accidental opportunity for the misleading of students because from a young age we are taught to trust and respect authority figures, and rightly so. However, college is a transition time from child to adult, dependent to independent. As adults, we must learn to discern when a topic is critical enough that we should do our own research before accepting/adopting a certain position. We can’t go through life critically questioning everything, of course, so we need to develop the skill of knowing what issues are important enough to be worth our time.

The problem is, we aren’t doing a good job of this. Another survey from the Pew Research Center shows that white Americans and black Americans have enormously different views on racial equality, with 88% of blacks and 53% of whites saying the country has more work to do on equality for blacks (2).

Additionally, another Pew Research Center survey on political polarization and media habits shows that 47% of consistent conservatives mostly see Facebook posts in line with their views, and 44% of consistent liberals have blocked someone on Facebook because they disagreed with something that person posted about politics (3). Clearly, we have a long way to go in seeing and understanding other perspectives on issues.

We are largely unaware of or improperly understanding perspectives other than our own. This is called confirmation bias (4), and it is a huge problem in our society. If we don’t even know that other viewpoints exist, how are we supposed to study and learn from them? It doesn’t mean that these other viewpoints are necessarily correct, because in fact some of them are mutually contradicting. But if we don’t examine them and the evidence supporting them, we could be duped.

Because of natural bias and selective information given, it is crucial that we as students and young adults take responsibility for doing our own research.

The Warning: Nazi Germany

As a historical example, in the creation of Hitler’s Germany, many factors were at play. Primarily, Hitler was a very charismatic guy, though we might not think of him as so. He believed in what he was promoting and doing (5), and he was actually a very successful public speaker, since he accomplished his goal of persuading people to follow him. He built others’ trust in him by helping restore Germany’s economy and status after WWI (6).

What can we say of those countless hordes of people who joined or supported his cause? Were some of them manipulated? Almost certainly. Were some of them secretly dissenters, but scared to resist? Absolutely. But the vast majority of the people were those who failed to think critically and examine the evidence for themselves. And why did they fail to do so?

These individuals went along with Hitler’s plan either because it sounded great and patriotic—save the Fatherland!—or because of peer pressure and pressure from authorities (7). Their family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers seemed to agree with the leader, and besides, if they dared to “make waves” it might affect them and their family negatively. Because no one would speak up, all seemed in agreement. They were duped.

Nazi Germany gives us a perfect example of a persuasive authority figure who people listened to without evaluating the situation for themselves, leading to the Holocaust. But there is a way to solve this problem and make sure we aren’t part of the next horror of history.

The Solution: Do Your Own Research

First of all, let me clear something up. I’m not saying we should reject or question critically every word our authority figures speak. There is a reason our professors and instructors are teaching—they know things! And there will always be someone who knows more than we do or has more experience. We should never pretend we have all the answers.

However, we need to be careful. We need to be careful not to automatically accept that everything we hear is as certain as the hand in front of our face. We must be able to identify when an issue someone is speaking about should be questioned. We should be willing to do research ourselves so we can come to an informed conclusion.

As college students, these years are a time of big changes in our lives. So many areas of responsibility that were once taken care of by our parents now fall upon our own shoulders. This is our time of setting foot in the big old world, and often it feels like a sink-or-swim situation. Our horizons are expanding, and now we must decide for ourselves what positions we take on countless situations.

Don’t be like those voters who show up to the polls not having a clue who the candidates are or what they stand for. Don’t be that person having a heated Facebook debate about something they know next to nothing about. That isn’t the kind of person we want to become.

Rather, this is our time to step out on our own two feet and stand, knowing that what we believe has a solid, sure foundation.

So, have you been duped? How do you know? The only way you can know for sure is if you check out the facts yourself.

Take Action

Now, I’m not asking you to change your major and become an investigative journalist like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who uncovered the Watergate scandal (7)(8)–unless you want to, of cousre. I’m not even suggesting you all assign yourself a research paper on origins science like this crazy gal right here (yup, that would be me).

What I ask is that, sometime in the next week, each one of you choose an important, foundational topic being discussed in one of your classes or on the news, and read up on it. Examine the evidence and the various perspectives on the subject. Then make an informed decision you can have confidence in, even if that decision is that neither side is conclusive.

In Conclusion

We have a problem: We are not doing well at recognizing and understanding other perspectives on critical issues. If we do not do our own research on important topics, especially those taught us by our instructors and other authority figures, we are setting ourselves up to be misled like Hitler’s followers were. However, if we take time to identify important issues and do some reading in the area, we will be more informed and more confident in the accuracy of our positions. Remember, this is a critical part of being an independent adult—knowing where you stand and why.

Toward that end, take some time this week to do some research on a topic that is important to you.

As Author Mark Twain wrote in his autobiography, “How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!” (9) His words speak the sobering reality that it is all too easy to be duped, and yet it can take work and time to undo that damage with the truth. Have you been duped? Determine now to do whatever it takes to ensure you are on the side of the truth.


  1. “Evolution and perceptions of scientific consensus.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (July 1, 2015) Accessed Oct. 14, 2017.
  2. “On views of race and inequality, blacks and whites are worlds apart.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (June 26, 2016). Accessed Oct. 17, 2017.
  3. “Political polarization & media habits.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (October 21, 2014) Accessed Oct. 17, 2017.
  4. Nickerson, Raymond S. (June 1998). “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”. Review of General Psychology. 2 (2): 175–220. Accessed Oct. 17, 2017.
  5. Goode, E. (1998, November 17). Insane or just evil? A psychiatrist takes a new look at Hitler. , Accessed Oct. 17, 2017.
  6. “Causes and motivations.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.). Accessed Oct. 17, 2017.
  7. Perry, J. M. (n.d.). Watergate Case Study. Accessed Oct. 17, 2017.
  8. The Woodward and Bernstein Watergate papers. (n.d.). Accessed Oct. 17, 2017.
  9. “2 December 1906: Paragraph 11,” in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2. 2013;style=work;brand=mtp;

Hi y’all. It’s about time I came back to this project. I’ve been thinking about it in the past couple months, trying to decide where I see this going. I’m still thinking some of that through, so for now suffice to say I’m going to try to pick up the momentum again and get some posts up soon.

Belief is not the death of intelligence


This post is taken from my main blog, To Dwell and Never Leave. It opens with an essay I wrote during practice for an exam, then expands upon it. I chose to duplicate the post here because I believe it provides a good foundation for what we’re going to cover here.

“Belief is the death of intelligence,” Robert Anton Wilson claims. Since he is making this statement, Wilson presumably considers himself to be an intelligent person. In fact, the audience would quite likely agree that he seems to believe what he is saying. Although this quote sounds witty and clever to the casual ear, intelligent people quickly point out that Wilson himself has neatly contradicted his own statement. Beliefs are inescapable, but belief and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Together, belief and intelligence provide the foundation of any argument. Using intelligent reasoning, a prepared person can defend his beliefs excellently. Belief is not the death of intelligence; rather, they benefit each other.

Beliefs surround us at every moment, but so does intelligence. From “personal” beliefs and opinions, such as which flavor of ice cream is best, to beliefs upon which we build our lives, beliefs are part of life. To escape belief would be to cease breathing. However, intelligent people also exist. Numerous scientists, mathematicians, and inventors fascinate the general population. Ask any person from the street if the world contains anyone more intelligent than him, and he will either quickly affirm the statement or proclaim himself to be the most intelligent of all humans. Either way, he has demonstrated belief in intelligence. Obviously, both belief and intelligence exist, and it is possible to possess intelligent, informed belief.

Since belief and intelligence are both present in the world, they can work hand in hand to allow a person to make a decision. Using his intelligence, one may seek out reasons to either believe or disbelieve something presented to him. During a politician’s speech, any listener may take note of claims the speaker makes and research them later on. Rather than taking the speaker at his word, this intelligent listener chooses to seek out the facts. When he has done this, the listener is better equipped to make an intelligent decision about what he will believe. Instead of intelligence and belief being opposites, when used properly, they compliment each other.

Actively using intelligence, a well-informed person can defend her beliefs. Belief cannot be defended with more belief, but logical reason provides excellent support for one’s belief. If someone claims that ereaders like the Kindle are forcing hard copy books into extinction, she must be able to defend her statement. If she merely states this belief without any intelligent argument to back it up, no one would have any reason to change their beliefs to align with hers. If, however, she cites scientific studies which provide graphs of sales figures from the ebook and physical book markets, she competently defends her belief and provides a reason for others to believe the same. Armed with intelligence, people are equipped to defend their beliefs.

Certainly, belief is not the death of intelligence. Instead, intelligence benefits belief. The world is full of fine examples of intelligent people who themselves hold myriad beliefs. Because belief and intelligence are both in existence, they can cooperate to form solid arguments. Putting intelligence into practice, well-prepared people can carefully defend and proclaim their beliefs. Without belief, the world would have no subjectivity. Without intelligence, there would be no reason to believe any one person over another. Indeed, belief and intelligence interlock in everyday life.


When you first read the quote I opened this essay with (the quote I was told to either support or defend), what did you think? If you’re like me, your first reaction was to think “Well, that’s a low-down thing to say” and get a little riled up, because you believe things and you consider yourself to be at least a semi-intelligent person. You probably didn’t actually see the self-defeating statement for what it was, though. I didn’t at first, either. However, within thirty seconds of my first thought, I saw the flaw in reasoning contained in this short sentence. Probably by the time you got a few sentences into reading my essay, you saw it too, and were smiling ruefully. How did I not see this before?

Don’t beat yourself up too hard. At the beginning of this year, I wouldn’t have seen it either.

So much of apologetics is learning how to think. It’s not just learning all the right arguments or being able to cite the most scientific sources. In fact, you could have every Answers in Genesis magazine memorized in its entirety, and you still wouldn’t be able to have a very good discussion of what you believe. Why? Because knowing a boatload of facts won’t teach you how to have a discussion with someone. Being able to point out the holes and assumptions that radiometric dating relies on won’t do you any good if you can’t see through to the core of what someone is saying and where they’re coming from.

How did I quickly spot the underlying error in the quote? The answer is simple: Practice. Throughout my entire course on worldviews/apologetics, I was given example after example of something someone might say that would sound good, but actually turned on itself. Ever heard the one about absolute truth? It goes something like this:

Person A: There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for me isn’t necessarily true for you.

Person B: Are you absolutely sure? I believe in absolute truth.

Did you see how that statement contradicted itself? If there was no such thing as absolute truth, how could Person A say with certainty that there was no such thing as absolute truth? It just doesn’t work.

In upcoming posts, I’m going to be working through with y’all more of how to do this sort of thinking. But as I close this introduction, let me drive this point home: Belief is not the death of intelligence. Don’t let anyone tell you that by believing the Bible, you’re “against science” or believing “a bunch of fairytales.” You are perfectly capable of having intelligent belief–of having intelligent faith.

Your faith is reasonable. Know it, believe it, defend it.