15. Intelligent Design video game didn’t count toward college credit as promised

14. Line for Richard Dawkins piñata too long

13. Kirk Cameron wouldn’t stop hugging me, even after my wife complained

12. Social-Darwinism lecture hit too close to home

11. Animatronic Einstein sounded identical to animatronic Fred Flintstone. Or was it the other way round?

10. Snack bar ran out of the Ken Ham & Cheese Sub. Had to order the Duane Gish Knish. It was stale.

9. Ray Comfort’s banana demonstration was inappropriate for children

8. Gift shop charged extra for framing creation science degree. Signed, Chuck Norris, PhD.

7. Price of admission didn’t include ride on “Skippy: The Friendly Dinosaur”

6. Sciency DNA exhibit made my brain hurt

5. Sciency Noah’s Ark exhibit made my brain hurt

4. Kent Hovind was seen standing between Adam & Eve statues

3. My child didn’t receive free “God Hates Evilutionists” t-shirt

2. Charles Darwin look-alike complained when I hit him

1. Jesus-shaped bathroom soap gave me a Jesus-shaped rash

Remember the Alamo... I mean the 2007 Republican Debate.

McCain states in the video that he believes in evolution, but then adds that the "hand of god" can be seen in the Grand Canyon at sunset. In essence he gives a non-answer; he sits his ass on the fence. It's almost as if he had rehearsed his response, but for a moment forgot the second half of the answer, the part that appeases the creationists. (Line, line. Where's the director? Where's my bottled water? The teleprompter isn't working and neither is my ear-piece. Someone get me a moist towelette. I'm John McCain, a freaking war hero.)

I'm convinced that McCain actually does "believe" in evolution. But I also think he desperately wants to be president, and will say anything, or do almost anything, to attain and keep that position. If he has to be indirectly responsible for damaging science education, so be it. If he does win the election, he'll most likely fuel a new creationist fire, for the very reason that he needs the approval of the Christian-right. He'll be their enabler. Earlier this year, he courted the Intelligent Design vote. And Intelligent Design is just creationism with an easier-to-swallow coating. (But it's still a hard pill to swallow.)

Don't forget the 2007 Republican Debate... or the Alamo.

That goofy kid who never ties his shoes? The dork with the brown-bag healthy lunch? The kid with asthma? The kid who can play the trumpet but couldn't score a goal if his life depended on it? That's a tough position in the social rank, and let me tell you, I have been all of those things at one time or another. It's tough to be the loser, and depending on the reason you're the loser it can be better or worse.

What I'm about to say I would be crucified for saying in polite public circles, but I'm afraid from my own limited experience it's true. Every Atheist I've ever known has been some sort of loser. They may have used drugs. They may have been really overweight. They may have been whiney or sketchy. Whatever the case, I've never known an Atheist I could exactly qualify as "normal." It doesn't mean they were mean or overly negative, on the contrary many of them were very nice. But they weren't the kids who scored the goals, who got the grades, played the "cool" instruments, or got the girls and boys. They were those lovely social outcasts, and I think because of this, even though I disagreed with their theological views, I felt a certain kinship with all of them. This led to many of my first interesting religion discussions.

Know that I'm speaking only from experience when I say this. I'm sure a lot of Atheists out there probably get laid all the time and play a mean guitar. But sometimes I do have to wonder. Take the new Atheists for example. I've joked about this and ranted about it in the past, but now addressing it seriously, they do act rather strange don't they? Richard Dawkins speaks in the most bitter angry tone, which is somewhat unnatural, and has been divorced three times. Sam Harris became an enlightened atheist after using ecstasy. Christopher Hitchens whines incessantly, but doesn't really have a job. Victor Stenger is pathologically obsessed with his grandchildren. And the entire reason Daniel Dennett became a philosopher was to disprove dualism, which he read about when he was sixteen years old. Why? What's the point? What do they get out of this? Money and fame yes, but what else?

The admission I think we all have to make is that your average atheist has a better reason for being an Atheist than your average Christian has for being a Christian. You see, a lot of Atheists will tell me about how there's no "objective evidence" for God's existence and all these great figures about how much harm religion does to society. But frankly, I think when we get down to the fact, that's all a bunch of bullshit. No one is objective when it comes to ultimate reality, and who could be? When you're talking about the reality that permeates everything, and the fate of your immortal/mortal soul, who is going to be objective about that? Just read some books from amazon. It's interesting how on both sides of the debate, Atheist and Theist, you see the books displayed as being objective and scientific, but when you read them it's plainly obvious the author has a position. Everyone has a position. Ultimate Reality can't be reduced to an objective critique (not that objective critiques exist anyways, but for sake of argument, Ultimate Reality especially can't be reduced in that way.)

So, given that no one is objective about ultimate reality, I must say that I see Atheists with quite compelling reasons not to believe in God, but not scientific ones. This modern obsession with science and physicalism is painfully limited. However, what creates an Atheist is something much bigger than that. Imagine that your parents die when you're six years old. How can you believe in the face of something like that, especially at such a young age? Another common one I see is the Atheists we created. People go to church every sunday, and they go to one of these whacko fundamentalist churches. One day they wake up in church, and realize that this doesn't make sense, there's a problem here, it doesn't mean anything. They ask questions and are told "either shut up or get the hell out." Well what thoughtful person wouldn't just get the hell out? God knows I would. If I had been brought up in a religious home, I am confident that I would be an Atheist today.

You see I don't often bother tangling with Atheists in debate, and this is why. Ordinarily, given enough time and effort, I think I can pretty conclusively show why most Atheist conclusions are wrong (although frankly I'm pretty damned lazy so I'm rarely willing to expend said time and effot.) However, the fact is, it's never about the facts. People are never Atheists because of the weakness of the cosmological or teleological argument, or because of the implications of materialist philosophy. People become Atheists because they experience something. Or sometimes it's because they don't experience something. It isn't about evidence. Of course, try to get any Atheist to admit this, and they never will. But in my own (limited) experience, you can always trace it back to something. Even Bertrand Russell, the father of Analytic Philosophy and the author of the essay "Why I'm Not a Christian" (which, along with Antony Flew's "Theology and Falsification" would become a cornerstone of modern Atheist thought) was an Atheist because of the negative impact that bleak moralist Christian preachers had on him when he was young (according to his daughter in her biography of him.)

So at the end of the day, I usually realize that there is no point to the debate, because the debate, at the core, isn't about God. It's that something happened in this person's life, and whatever happened is inexcusable. Whatever happened has destroyed the idea that there can be any ultimate goodness, ultimate hope out there. How can my words or my arguments change this? Many times I don't even dare to try, because frankly I have no right. How can I argue with a person whose mother is dying of Multiple Sclerosis? I have never known such terrible pain. How do I explain the coherence of Theism to someone whose parents died in a car accident? The coherence of their upbringing ended with a drunk driver and a red light. What do I say to these people? There is nothing I can say. Their hopes were destroyed before they ever got a chance to take off. I cannot replace their hopes with words. It is my prayer that actions can replace these hopes, but that is a theory I will have to test in due time.

However, to conclude, I would like to send a warning to my fellow Christians. It is a sad reality of the universe, that in a world governed by our free will some people should have their hopes dashed so early and should lose their faith so fast. However, the sad truth is that we Christians created many of these problems. We created the new Atheists, we brought their scorn and disdain and arrogance upon ourselves. All the times we refused to listen, all the times we were insensetive, all the times we forgot the words of the Savior and replaced them with our own filthy human utterances we helped to create this problem. It doesn't make the Atheists right. Christianity serves as the new Scapegoat, after African Americans and Jews and Atheists themselves, as well as a host of other scapegoats. This will pass and one day there will be another scapegoat. The connection between Hitler's methodology (kill the Jews and all will be will with society) and Richard Dawkins's methodology (destroy faith and all will be well with society) is laughable. However, we must realize that we have created this problem, and that in some senses we deserve this. We must remain Christian during this time. We must forgive Atheists, accept their scorn and disdain for our religion, and not strike back. If we do that, we win. If we fight back, we continue the cycle of violence and destruction created by our original sin, the very cycle that Jesus Christ died for us to break.

I created (and danced) the "Richard Dawkins: Beware The Believers" viral ad for "Expelled : No Intelligence Allowed" found here:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&fmt=18

The viral ad received 200, 000 views on the web during the three weeks prior to the (Expelled) release. I also have a visual effects credit for the film Expelled.

Since Beware the Believers contained an all-star atheist cast (Dawkins, Myers, Scott, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett) it was immediately popular among the atheist community. While a funny video that I quite enjoy (and will always enjoy, probably), it's a resounding example of a creationist failure. You know the drill, don't you?

1. Kirk Cameron (Lying for Jesus: Kirk Cameron Edition)
2. Dr. Jason Lisle (Reading Answers in Genesis: Probably easier when high.)
3. Lee Strobel (Lee Strobel: Ex-Atheist or just ignorant?)
4. Ray Comfort (Banana: Proof of creationism., Ray Comfort has a blog, Ray Comfort: What the fuck, man?)
5. Rhonda Storms (Fuck Rhonda Storms)
6. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (DO SOMETHING IN LOUISIANA! QUICK!, Now the Candle Burns at both Ends)
7. Rush Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh)
8. Bill Donohue (It Gets Me!, It Gets Me! (Part II))
9. Michael Edmondson

Atheists, Skeptics, Freethinkers: 1 billion+

Expelled: No Intelligence At All: 0

But no I know, there's a real definition of free-thinker, something about only trusting scientific evidence or direct experience right? But how do we know only scientific evidence or direct experience are important in the pursuit of knowledge? Oh that's right we don't, but it's just more convenient if we could all shut up and not worry about other things that might conceivably be more important. You know I read this great book by Victor Stenger called "God: The Failed Hypothesis." Stenger's approach is interesting. He creates a paper-thin half-assed definition of God, then proceeds to tear it down triumphantly like a bratty kid kicking a sandcastle apart on a beach. His entire book is basically a recount of modern scientific theories, and at the end of each chapter he inserts some smarty-pants comment that proves...oh that's right absolutely nothing. My personal favorite was in one chapter when he remarks "Metaphysics is actually quite a useless pursuit outside of the questions of religion and spirituality." What balls you have Stenger, denouncing one of the central pillars of all of historical philosophy as "a useless pursuit," but I guess I can take your word for it right? Oh wait, do you have a degree in Philosophy? No. Are you open minded? Well let me think. When members of the administration at your University mentioned the fact that empirical models of intangible concepts such as love or justice don't get you very far, you responded that they aren't religious experiences either. Oh really? Have you ever had a religious experience? No?! Have you ever let yourself have one? No?!?!?! Well then it sounds like you're speaking horse-shit right there aren't you!? Oh me oh my oh no oh no!!! This, "I am a scientist thus I am better than you" tone also pollutes the writing of the ever nasty Richard Dawkins, who wrote a book called "The God Delusion." Alvin Plantinga points out that this is a book by a scientist about Philosophy. (On a side note, I must congratulate Professor Dick on his chosen title. Whatever kind of philosopher he may be, he is a terriffic businessman.) Dawkins's main argument against religion is that God is really improbable, and asks who designed God. I gotta tell you, this question has pissed me off ever since the first time I heard some thick-headed intellectual utter it. If anything at all exists, then something must have preceded it, and since an infinite regress wouldn't produce anything, it means something always existed. Since the universe has a beginning, it's (in the mind of an ordinary individual) rather reasonable to think that the universe probably didn't always exist. Therefore, we may think of God as that thing that has always existed. Improbable? A lot of things are improbable chump, but weirder things have happened.

See this last paragraph is pointing out the one thing that turns me off the most about these Atheists. When I read books by Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, (the transformed) Antony Flew, Francis S Collins, or CS Lewis, they seem thoughtful and polite, like kindly old gentlemen who are explaining what they think and welcoming you to respond. When I read Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger, I'm impressed by their inherent assumption: "If you don't agree with me you're just stupid," which is brilliantly proven by how one of the first things they each mention is a flawed poll that indicated that something like 97% of American Scientists don't believe in a personal God. But what they never explain is why I should be care. I'm supposed to be dazzled and impressed by these great and magnificent scientists, but frankly, I really don't care. When I was in highschool I knew a boy named Brad who had straight A's and a 4.0 average. He went to Dartmouth and in highschool took every Advanced Placement course he could. Brad also enjoyed Marijuana. One night he smoked up before driving home and hit a telephone pole going sixty miles per hour. Brad's brains weren't much help when they we lowered them into the ground in a metal box now were they? Scientific achievements prove nothing except that given a certain set of philosphical rules and enough time, progress will be made.

But here are some other interesting facts about these new Atheists that make me skeptical of their skepticism:

Richard Dawkins has been divorced three times. He also invented "memetics," a branch of science so thouroughly useless that it might as well not even have been dreamed up. "New Breakthrough in Memetics! It's utterly worthless!" Give me a break

Christopher Hitchens...get a fucking job. Seriously, the only contribution you've ever made is bitching and moaning about some other problem and finding a way to blame it on religion. Next thing you know rain will be religion's fault. Why don't you go get something done you presumptuous cock.

Sam Harris: Thanks for the great points you made in Letter To A Christian Nation. Why don't you go toke up on some more ecstasy and get back to us with more of your excellent ideas.

Daniel Dennett: Functionalism sucks, it's been denounced as "ardent craziness" even by other naturalistic philosophers. Give it up.

Victor Stenger: You are an excellent example of a person criticizing philosophy who clearly knows nothing about it. You may find metaphysics boring, but I happen to find quantum physics boring, and yet my objection on those grounds doesn't mean quantum physics isn't true. And stop bragging about your grandkids you old imp.

Lewis Wolpert: I have searched many bookstores looking for your books and have not been able to find any. Do you know what that means? Let me put it this way. If we take an average bookstore, we're guaranteed a lot of books in that bookstore will suck. So, for your books to be bad enough not to make it into an average bookstore, that's gotta be off the charts suck. I'll keep my six impossible things before breakfast, thank you very much.

 It's the complete lack of sight and inability to think outside the box on their part that impresses me. They're like people who were locked inside a windowless house for their entire lives. A new person comes to the house and describes the beauty and majesty of the outdoors, but they insist that the outdoors don't exist and only their little house exists, nothing else. Enjoy your house you narrow minded fools.

But there's one concrete reason that makes me not want to be one of these people, which my entire post has proved. You see, in Christianity, there's this little thing we believe in called original sin. Now, despite the protestations of many theologically-challenged Atheists, original sin isn't only about some guy eating a fruit six thousand years ago. The point of original sin is it explains this thing, this nature in us, this animal nature that we can't ignore, that we're trying to get over because it's important to us, and not only because of God and Jesus and Heaven and all that. You see, original sin is often reduced by "freethinkers" to all that crap you hear on the news about sex and homosexuality or Church and State, but that's not what original sin is about. Original sin is that part of you that hates, that just wants to take things for yourself. You see, it wouldn't help an Atheist to "revel in [your] original sin" (as I heard one foolishly say once) because to "revel in your original sin" would really mean "be an animal." Put another way, that would basically mean throwing all these nicey-nice little things our post-modern "humanist" culture values, things like tolerance, forgiveness, love, justice, right out the window. So see, that would mean that if some Atheist politely told me he didn't believe, I would just kill him. Then maybe I'd rape his wife, because I like sex and it would give me more offspring. Then I think I would take his possessions, and wait to do it to someone else. Now you know what happens if everybody in the whole world does that? Chaos. Then we just have a world full of animals, but we aren't humans anymore. You see, rising above original sin is about becoming a human, considering other life worthy, being thoughtful.

Now it's interesting that I've "revelled" a bit in my original sin during this post. I've responded to Atheists the way I've often been responded to, with bitterness and sarcasm, not to mention some thoughtlessness thrown in on the side. Many of the things I've talked about on here I don't have a complete understanding of. In short, I've behaved in the intellectual sense like an animal, simply responding on impulse to insult and hurt, and not stopping to consider the other position seriously and rationally. It has been great fun, but see, the unfortunate side of this post is that shortly I will receive a whole host of comments discussing what a stupid person I am, from angry Atheists, and I will probably earn their eternal wrath and hatred. Now see, in the future, it will probably force me to fight back, and the fighting will continue...forever. Because neither of us are going to win this little war we're having, how could we? The fact is that we're fighting just to fight, because we're just compelled to the fight...like animals. The one way to escape this little debacle I've gotten myself into is to forgive, to accept the pain I will be given and not fight back, to be the bigger man. Oh wait, but there was somebody who advocated that, in fact, He built His entire philosophy around it. Who was that again? Oh that's right, that was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, which leads me right back to Christianity.

I pity the Atheists like Dawkins and Stenger, and they are what convince me of the truth of my beliefs, because I see that only the path laid out for me by my savior will prevent such a tragic event such as war, whether it be an internet war of words or a real Nuclear War. But Dawkins and Stenger can't see that. They are so blindly obsessed with their empiricism, so desperately following their beloved science-god that they can't escape. It's pathetic really. I forgive you Dawkins, Stenger, all of you, and all who will come to this page and ridicule me, and I hope you can forgive me too. If not, enjoy your freethinking then fools, I hope you can free-think yourselves back to life.

The elite here is comprised of: Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Daniel Dennett, Charles Darwin, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

My personal favorite character is Sam Harris, I think the grillz are funny. But Dennett is funny in anything like this, because he looks like Santa but most religious would tell you he embodies Satan instead. Also, when he comes out of nowhere and says "YEAH!", I laughed hard. Of course, that particular "YEAH!" is seemingly taken from the Anthrax song I'm The Man. I could be wrong, though.

Casey Luskin insists the Discovery Institute is a secular think tank. And he says it with a straight face.

What is it about the spreading of pseudo-science that makes reasonable people cringe and gag? One characteristic is surely the introduction of religious / political thinking into discussions of fact. The natural world simply is. If it upsets our human sensibilities, too freaking bad for us. When a bull shark bites a potential food item (a human leg, perhaps), it is being neither good nor evil; it's simply hungry and inquisitive. It's nothing personal. Thus, describing the natural world is best accomplished through observations of what is, not through contemplation of how things should be. Blaming Darwinism for the Holocaust, communism, capitalism, rock 'n roll music, abortion, racism, moral relativism, and the general decay of Western society is irrelevant to the scientific question of whether or not evolution by natural selection is a valid explanation for observed evolutionary change on planet Earth. What is and what ought to be are two distinct questions.

But throw a rock at the Discovery Institute and you're more likely to hit a lobbyist or a lawyer than an actual scientist. For example, Casey Luskin, an attorney with the DI, blogs to his fellow intelligent designers about the "it's just a theory" argument.

Darwinists love to bash Darwin-skeptics who call evolution "just a theory, not a fact." The truth is that I rarely, if ever, hear people who are closely involved with the ID movement using this line to oppose evolution. The "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" phrase tends to come from the vox populi—intelligent people who studied this issue in their biology class or perhaps have read books like Darwin’s Black Box, Icons of Evolution, or Darwin on Trial, but otherwise don’t follow the issue very closely.

But most creationists do use the argument, endlessly. They also use the "intelligent designer" and "irreducible complexity" arguments. The fact is that intelligent design creationists are a small minority. Polls indicate that most American creationists are of the Old Earth variety. And I think the Discovery Institute knows this full well. Isn't it really all about talking points, ones the DI can easily disseminate, and ones the general public can easily digest and regurgitate, regardless of the scientific facts?

Casey Luskins also lists his scientific qualifications:

Having taken over a dozen courses covering evolutionary biology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I’m a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism.

Fine, be a skeptic, Luskin. But are you as skeptical about intelligent design? Have you taken a dozen courses covering intelligent design at the undergraduate and graduate level? No, because intelligent design isn't a science, and it can be pretty well summed up in a single 15 minute lecture. ID is a vague conclusion, not an explanation. The only thing propping it up is a propaganda machine. And all the whining in the world about "morals", "culture", and "academic freedom" isn't going to polish the ID turd. The Discovery Institute calls itself the "Center for Science and Culture". But it really should choose one or the other, "science" or "culture", not both. Let "ought" and "is" be distinct; life works so much better when our desires don't cloud our judgment of reality.

"Truthiness" has entered the vocabulary through The Colbert Report, and I'd like to add "Factiness" to the mix. 

The other day, my partner-in-life and I were talking about a book he is reading, Daniel Dennett's Phenomenology,  and he wondered, "Is it a fact, if you don't experience it?"  Given how subjective thoughts and experiences are, how do you get any certainty?  

Fact,  according to the handiest online Farlex dictionary, it is:   

·         Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.  

·         Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.  

·         A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.  

·         Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.  

Given how downright tautological a lot of the definitions are (a "real" occurrence? so what is "real"?) there is a lot of wiggle-room in this "facty" arena.  Here is how I go about sorting fact from fiction.  

 Pass/Fail or Bell Curve 

I'll use a concept we are all familiar with from school:  Pass/fail, or the dreaded Curve. It probably is not a perfect metaphor, but good enough for our purposes.

First, I select whether to grade a fact on pass/fail or on the curve. Pass/fail means something is deemed to be incontrovertible, or is fiction, has no weight - it's a question of "either/or".   

On the other hand, grading on the curve means something exists on a scale, something can slide around between absolutely proven and maybe kind of possibly so, and may never reach the absolute point of provability or  disprovability.   

Context and Consequence 

When I am dealing with things where a lot is at stake, I don't grade on pass/fail.  An example of this is when I'm deciding whether to take a food supplement or not.  

The reasoning goes like this:

·         Is the issue that the food supplement is supposed to influence critical?

·         Is there SOME scientific (not amateur healer) evidence that it is effective?

·         Are there consequences to not having taken it, if it proves out, in the end, to have been effective? (i.e., the effect is cumulative over the years, or is thought to prevent an irreversible process)

·         Is it relatively inexpensive?  

If the answer to all that is YES, then my threshold for awarding it the status of  "factiness" (i.e., acting as if this is FACT) is  relatively low.

 The  place on the curve kind of closer to "fact", which also means that I am willing to act on that attribute, and that means that the FACTINESS INDEX is high. This becomes a basis for investing my money, and securing a supply, etc.  I go with it, even though it does not have the final definitive study supporting it.  

But, I have another question:

 ·         Are there any serious known potential side-effects?  

If the answer to that is also YES, then the equation changes, and the threshold for factiness rises substantially, and the FACTINESS INDEX is low.   

Factiness Index and Climate Change  

This is also my approach to the issue of climate change. When people argue that it has not been absolutely proven, I realize that they are grading the issue on a pass/fail basis.  I don't grade an issue of that much consequence on pass/fail, it is definitely on the curve, and my threshold for taking the plunge and advocating for action is quite low, which means I have it pretty high on my FACTINESS INDEX.  My reasoning is not substantially different from electing to take a food supplement. The reasoning is as follows: 

·         Is the issue critical (potentially very large scale consequences?)

·         Is there SOME scientific evidence for climate change occurring?

·         Is there SOME scientific evidence that it is, to some extent, anthropogenic? (generated by us homo sapiens)

·         Are there serious consequences to not having acted, if scientific evidence, in the end,  proves the previous two beyond any (even manufactured or manipulated) doubt? are the effects cumulative over the years, or will a process, if not prevented, be irreversible and damaging?

My own answer to all of the above is YES.  

Then there is my last question (why should a let climate change off the hook any more than a food supplement?):

·         Is it expensive? 

My answer is: it is probably expensive, both in terms of outlay and opportunity cost. But given the enormity of the issue, it is very hard to get a handle on it in terms of costs, because I don't have, say, a pill from a pharmaceutical company for comparison like with my little supplement. So I leave that as moot - take it out of the equation.  

And then the other question, which is the same as the one for a food supplement:

·         Are there any serious known potential side-effects to ACTING AS IF climate change is a fact and it is anthropogenic AND BEING WRONG? 

In the case of climate change, if we were wrong, and it turns out that there is no anthropogenic climate change,  the consequences are:

·         We clean up the environment,

·         Make our energy use more efficient, and probably have a number of defense-industry like breakthroughs on the way, and

·         Reduce our dependence on limited, not to mention "foreign" resources. ·         We could end up spending a lot of money cleaning up and generating new strategies to deal with a non-issue,  that we could spend somewhere else.

I'm ok with those consequences, even given the last point, because the evidence for me is past the 50% point on the bell curve, so my threshold for factiness on this issue stays pretty low and the FACTINESS INDEX stays very high. 

In brief, my FACTINESS INDEX is shorthand for me, a way of saying that, in serious issues where things really matter, determining whether something is an absolute proven truth,  is less important than the issue seen in context, with all the associated consequences. The index allows me to slide it around on a scale, and let it settle somewhere on the INDEX - taking context, consequence and what I feel is stake on a subjective level influence my fingers, a little like a on a Ouija board. On other issues, like deciding about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, I would hold out for final scientific truth.

In this I might be a real contrarian, arguing with the people who insist that the more important something is, the more absolute the answer needs to be, with regard to FACTINESS.