No she isn't. She is down by at least 15 points. The chances of her getting elected is very slim to none.

Yet there's a difference, isn't there?? Creationism is a theory based on, well, absolutely nothing. Other theories are based on studying the world's organisms & ecosystems... you know, "science."

This is definitely throwing pearls to swine but, other people need to understand why this is wrong.

First off, evolution is not a theory on the origins of the universe or the origin of life. It is the unifying field theory of biology, which explains life's diversity, adaptability and well, evolution. That is, how life changes over time.

If you think that because evolution is called a "theory" it's somehow unproven, I'd like to remind you of some other "theories."

Atomic "theory," the science that gives us the nuclear bomb. The Germ "Theory" of Disease, the science that explains that microorganisms cause illnesses. Hell, you can throw Cell "Theory" on there while you're at it.

A scientific theory is an explanation for a body of FACTS. Ever heard of Music "theory," how about Economic "theory?" Are you going to tell me that music and economies don't exist because there are theories that describe how they work?

I would hope not.

Let me just wrap this up real fast. Evolutionary theory is not just proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is the strongest theory in science period.

At this point in time, it would make more sense to deny the existence of gravity then it would to deny evolution. We don't even understand how gravity works other than its underlying principles.

But the fact that organisms adapt, mutate, split off into new species and become radically different over thousands of generations has been discovered, tested, proven and directly observed on both a micro and a macro level and its mechanisms are almost perfectly understood.

Being a unified theory of biology, it both explains and is independently verified by anatomy, paleontology, microbiology, genetics, morphology, embryology, medicine, etc. etc. etc.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

Furthermore, that's not even what intelligent design attempts to refute. Intelligent design is anti-science -period.- They reject the notion that there even CAN be a naturalistic explanation to any phenomena as being "atheistic," even though many scientists are religious.

Furthermore, they reject big bang cosmology, most of astronomy and by extension, physics, plate tectonics, not just evolution but biology almost entirely (since taxonomic classification is arbitrary under ID), they reject geology and they openly assert that anything that contradicts the bible cannot be true.

In fact, ID is not only not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. It has no suggested method, let alone testability. It is LITERALLY an appeal to magic, that's what ID means.

Even if it didn't fail on all those levels, it can't qualify because it's an unfalsifiable conclusion which must be accepted regardless of and often in spite of evidence.

It's a joke.

I don't know what to tell you if you can't see that.

Oh wait, you said science was a religion, while typing on a computer on the internet, a product which is the fruit of quantum mechanics, electrical engineering, advanced mathematics and, occasionally, the theory of relativity and other heavy physics based stuff via satellite.

Do you not realize how hilariously stupid it is to say something like that? There are no rituals in science, no beliefs, no incantations, no holy books, no songs nor psalms to learn, no gods to worship and no beliefs which must be taken on faith.

In fact, science rejects all those things because what use would they be? In order for science to mean anything, it has to WORK.

That's the difference between beliefs and science. I don't have to pray for a miracle to get my computer to turn on or my car to start up. It WORKS, and it works because it's based on FACTS.

You might as well say that testimony in court or DNA evidence is a "religion."

It's fucking idiotic.

You should be ashamed of your own boundless arrogance and your stunning ignorance.

Get some perspective.

So, in other words, you don't know anything about it, you live in an environment which is hostile to it for biased reasons and you haven't attempted to remedy this/

And yet you still think you're entitled to an opinion?

Science is NOT politics, religion, philosophy or art. If you don't know your shit, you don't get to HAVE an opinion.

If you claim to be more of an expert on history, let me put this in perspective for you.

Imagine I said that I had never been taught World War II in class, that I had never attempted to read a book about it, that I grew up around Neo-Nazis and that I was never really particularly interested in educating myself. But I'm convinced that the Holocaust never happened.

How much of an idiot would I have to be to think that opinion was even remotely valid?

Think about your position for a minute, there's a reason I made the analogy.

Yup and it's called the Scientific Method!

Thank you. You saved me a lot of typing. I cannot believe half the shit I just read above your comment. Such ignorance! That's why this country is going to hell....wow

again I never said this was a FACT. I just said if YOU wish to believe that its your choice and the government should not MANDATE that you only learn evolution.

It boils down to--- to me when someone becomes rabid and way over the top in defending science or refuses to hear any other person's opinion about science or starts name calling toward anyone who challenges that person's individual belief that science is the end all and be all of EVERYTHING in existence and worst of all when a person can't critically think or defend themselves so they simply retort well its because my opponent is just ignorant of the facts as I understand them and therefore I must re-educate them or bring them over to believing exactly like me----that is by very definition being a religious zealot-----and that same behavior is exactly what extremist, right wing, nut job, rabid, uber Christians do as well in defending their belief in God and the bible explains everything and if you don't believe in God or the bible you can just fuck off or you are going to hell.

And its also basically what people are taking Christine O'Donnell to task for doing throughout this campaign and claiming is a negative and a reason why she is an extremist who doesn't deserve to get elected.

again that's not my point--my point is in the public schools students are ONLY taught that evolution can and does explain the creation of the earth and world and ALL other theories about the creation of the universe are relegated to the humanities or to history or to religious classes.

So I think that yes evolution within species or cultures is valid...I just don't think evolution as it has been perverted and used to explain the origins of ALL life rises to the absolute standard of science and therefore it too should be taught in the humanities or history or religious classes.

Creationism isn't really a theory, it's just mythology taken a little too seriously. There is nothing at all wrong with mythology and it has a valuable and legitimate place in our culture- but that place is a long way from the science of biology and natural history.

Sorry but its not an "acceptable theory" its a proven fact. It is what it is. To say otherwise is just ridiculous.

what part of DUH evolution WITHIN species or cultures is a proven fact and I get that isn't translating?

Its just that in public schools evolutionary theory is misrepresented and misinterpreted to say something Darwin never intended---which is evolution explains the very origins of life and how the universe came into being.

Again--I think that since no one alive today nor anyone who could write was alive when the earth and the universe came into being---all we are left with is theories and speculation and therefore everyone deserves the right to decide for themselves privately how the earth and world was formed and conversely not be attacked if they don't believe the same way as someone else about it.

How is evolution given as the explanation for the origin of life or "the creation of the universe"? I think you're making that up or getting confused... The big bang wasn't evolution. Simple life forming from some strange nutrient soup of amino acids also wasn't evolution.
Evolution is what we use to describe the process that created diversity of life afterwards.

I think you're just very disoriented here.

I think common sense is high. Talking all gibberish & nonsense.

“Refuses to hear any other person’s opinion about science.” That’s the thing, you don’t get to have an opinion on science, you can either prove it wrong or deal with the data and findings as they are. This isn’t zealotry for the sake of an engrained belief, but rather a reaction to the notion that observable phenomena and replicable data aren’t worth as much as your opinion on a subject. I don’t get to have an opinion on how I think Gibb’s free energy works until I can mathematically and physically replicate said opinion, there are no “facts as I understand them.” In the same fashion you don’t get to have an opinion on how species change over time, bacteria and viruses reshuffle their genomes, or how genetic diseases are transmitted generationally until you can provide tangible replicable findings.

I am perfectly fine with renouncing a scientific ‘belief’ at the drop of a hat if more accurate data is provided, my ‘opinion’ of science will change. For example when I was in the seventh grade bacteria and archae were lumped together and called monerans with little distinction made between the two. Today due to evidence presented I don’t hold to the opinion that bacteria and archae are the same, ‘opinion’ changed.

Science means having a “because,” and I have one for my ‘beliefs,’ saying that someone is arrogant or a zealot due to the fact they have a replicable justification for their world view and is willing to present evidence is disingenuous. It isn’t here’s what I believe and you need to too; it’s here’s why I believe what I do, why aren’t you giving me a tangible replicable reason to think otherwise.

science in science class, religion in religious class.
does teaching civil law in our classrooms undermine religion?
if the week has 168 hours in it, and sleep takes up 54 of those hrs, lets say dinner takes up another 7.you are at about a hundred hours a week.school takes up 54 hrs too, but science class is an hr at most.so evolution takes up (if taugt all year long) 7 hrs a week.that means out of the completely free 60 some odd hours in the week, evlution cant be negated?
is the theory of evolution so powerfull that after 60 hrs of indoctrination a week it cant be refused.cults turn peoples entire lives around needing less time.

how much sexual content fill in that 60 hrs compared to creationism at our parents will.
how much violence do these 60 hrs of free time allow thanks to our lazy parents.
by the time we are adults we are overflowing with the lexicon of americana.from wheres the beef, to national lampoon movies.but some how evolution cant be countered.we can learn by 13 about sex drugs and rock and roll, but evolution is the bridge too far.we cant be bothered cultivating young minds ourselves, so lets interfere with our educational system to accomidate our laziness.lets not use the 60 hrs of free time to foster our childrens minds, lets just yell at those who wont do it for us in the manor we want them to.so we dont have to bother.

if you dont like your kids learning tolerance in school, you push hate on them at home.
if you dont agree with the school books historical perspective, you share it with your kid.
if you dont condome the violence of contact sports, the kid still has to participate in gym.
if you dont want you kids believing evolution, teach them creationism.

can we can teach creationism in school as science, when we teach evolution in church as faith.

It really doesn't matter. Religion ("creationism") has no place in public institutions. That's for the parents to teach! Want your kid to know about the bible? Get off your lazy ass and brainwash him yourself! Take him to church!

But it cannot be taught in schools. Only science.

Agreed. Only when our society refers to it as "Christian Mythology" will it be allowed in public institutions.

Have some Common Sense, Please.

the problem is it is not science and should not be taught in Biology classes. Can you apply the scientific method to ID? Not at all! First you hypothesize, then jump straight to God did it.
I do not know if there is or isn't, neither does anyone else. Kids are confused enough today without this intuition being throw at them. Your religous beliefs are your own. If they help you through this journey then I have no problem with them. Stop pushing to change public policy for those who do not agree with you.

"and that same behavior is exactly what extremist, right wing, nut job, rabid, uber Christians do as well in defending their belief in God and the bible explains everything and if you don't believe in God or the bible you can just fuck off or you are going to hell."

Says it all doesn't it?

No, your argument wasn't that. I don't know if you realized it but by typing the words "word dude, I've argued this a couple of times," you were agreeing with common_sense, who holds the exact opposite opinion.

If that wasn't what you intended to agree with, you didn't make that clear at all and thus you shouldn't be surprised when someone misinterprets your position.

I'm not confused or high--thanks for asking. Neither am I illiterate but that's a moot point with you guys I guess --- and unlike you guys I can actually track the conversation and add something to it besides personal attacks.

I have continually said I understand and believe in evolution. But what I keep getting flamed for is saying that in this one particular area Christine O'Donnell is correct. O'Donnell argued that local school districts should have the choice to teach intelligent design if they choose.

Evolution BETWEEN species is being taught as scientifically proven fact (it is not) and is the ONLY valid explanation for the beginnings of the earth--just as the big bang theory is taught as the ONLY valid explanation of the universe's creation--and both are endorsed specifically as FACT and irrefutable science by both the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. I simply asked why is that? Why isn't the big bang theory taught in the humanities or the cultural studies part of the curriculum where ALL THE OTHER THEORIES of the universe's creation are taught and why aren't young people encouraged to critically think and decide for themselves how the universe formed? Because the First Amendment clearly prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

So my argument is by teaching the big bang theory and evolution between species as accepted scientific fact and by endorsing the teachings that those two theories are the only valid and acceptable theories to be taught in science the U.S government branches of the DOE and DOJ are in violation of the First Amendment because refusing to teach any other alternatives to the big bang theory--including creationism and any other theories that are considered religious in nature from a religion outside christianity--violates the student's rights to freely exercise their religion and their freedom of speech because when they (or myself) dare to disagree we are shouted down and called rude names.

Fair enough, but you should've said that.

When you say "I agree" to a wall of text, people assume you meant the whole thing and not just part of it.

No other theories are taught because there are no other theories. Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. Either you don't understand what science is or you think religion has something to rely on besides faith, and in either case you'd be totally wrong.

Also, when you say things like "Evolution BETWEEN species is being taught as scientifically proven fact (it is not)," you pretty much give yourself away. You're completely ignorant and it's funny that you think we won't notice that.

Science is synonymous with truth, that's literally what the root word of it means.

If a current scientific theory is untrue, which is entirely possible, then it needs to be removed and replaced with something that makes more sense.

But until you can refute microwave background radiation, red-shifting galaxies, etc., you have nothing to say about the Big Bang. Until you can refute tens of thousands of fossils, DNA ancestry and practically all the rest of biology, you have nothing to say about evolution.

You say things like "teach other theories" but I'm convinced you don't even know what a theory IS.

A theory is not just any dumb idea you made up, it's not just anything you think happened. It is a DEMONSTRABLY CORRECT explanation for a body of factual evidence which has applications in the real world and predictive power for events in its field.

So essentially, what you're asking us to do is equate the best supported theory in science with a mythological story and to teach them both as being equally valid explanations for the diversity and origin of life.

You ask to to do this against current evidence and essentially for no reason at all.

You're asking us to replace something that works with nothing that doesn't.

And your asinine assertion that science is somehow equivalent to religion has already been refuted. The line of reasoning makes no sense. You might as well say engineering is religious, you might as well talk about the ruling in any court case being religious.

A naturalistic explanation based on evidence is, by definition, NOT religious.

Contrary to your insistence that you "can actually track the conversation and add something to it besides personal attacks," you haven't added anything that either A. hasn't already been refuted and you chose to ignore or B. cherry picked out a few insults to try and get victim points.

Seriously, I don't think there's been a single correct thing you've said so far. All you've done here is repost exactly what I just trashed up above.

The whole evolution theory is on hope and faith since the fossil record doesn't support it.
Many scientists prefer it because the alternative is repulsive to them.
That they are not the end all be all authority on the universe is just unacceptable to them so they place their faith in a elaborate whimsical theories (which change almost daily).
It may not be a religion but it is a faith.

The fossil record doesn't support it? Are you completely god damn insane?

Ok genius, what DOES it support? We don't find fossilized bunnies in the Cambrian and we find T-Rexes next to early humans. It's not a coincidence.

And there is no alternative, period. Not one has been suggested. ID and creationism are not an alternative. They are unfalsifiable, a priori BELIEFS, which must be believed regardless of and in spite of evidence.

And that's ignoring the fact that the same science that puts people behind bars via DNA forensic evidence, a science you agree with, is the same science that proves you're a monkey.

And it's NOT "many" scientists, it's practically all scientists.

No one in their right mind denies evolution because you'd have to be a fucking idiot.

Gravity is easier to deny, we still don't even know what it is. I won't bother with someone as clueless as you.

Deny reality all you want, the universe does not care that you refute your own existence. The Nylon eating bacteria that worked its way into existence several decades ago isn't affected by the yammering of a clueless bigot.

So just shove your hands over your ears, you know, the unique ones only us monkeys have on this planet, and block out the truth since the fairy tale is easier to believe.

You're a flat-earther, you're just too obsessed with your tribe to realize it.

Because your beliefs and your "theories" are backed by absolutely no fact at all. Simple as that. You're arguing to teach belief, not reality/science. Scientific theories are supported by facts, and these theories are tested over and over again...

Oh but im not a monkey, yet science tells me that i am. The 1% difference in dna is an unmeasurable gap (beyond comprehension).
Without going into the neverending debate on the origin of life let me just say that until we solve it - every theory is going to lead to nowhere.
Interesting that you call me a "flat earther" because you are more akin to one than i am.
At one time the conventional wisdom was that the earth was flat and very few people would hear any talk to the contrary.

Dude, a 1% difference in DNA is HUGE!

All of humanity are apes, not monkeys. It's called a classification that is based on genetic evidence that a fourth grader could understand. What is your excuse?

No you don't understand what science is and you keep missing my point. The big bang theory is just that a theory--nobody has been able to irrefutably prove that that was the only way the universe could have been created. Recently even Stephen Hawking disputed the big bang theory--and God had a hand in the creation of the universe so that is a pretty good indication that no the big bang theory is not accepted fact or without those detractors among the atheists and the solid scientific minds of today as well.

But my overall point is with just this particular tip of the iceberg so to speak why are we teaching one particular theory over all others? Even if I grant you the point that the big bang theory is the most scientific and least religious or philosophical in nature that still doesn't answer the why it's taught to the exclusion of all other theories and how the government through the DOJ and the DOE teaching only the big bang theory is not a violation of the First Amendment and essentially a government endorsement of science over every other explanation because it might be considered too religious---considering that the First Amendment says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion just as they cannot set up a particular religion either.

You seem to be professionally misinformed and it doesn't help that you continue to reiterate points I already debunked. So I'll just respond to the new content.

Stephen Hawking said the exact opposite of what you just put down. His newest book suggests that the laws of physics are sufficient to create the universe and thus an omnipotent, otherworldly being wasn't necessary.

Not that it's relevant because that's just his opinion whereas the big bang is the best supported conclusion there is in astrophysics right now. The only other competing theory is the steady-state universe, which can't account for red-shifting galaxies and microwave background radiation.

And this conversation is over if you say "it's just a theory" one more time. It has been explained to you, more than once now, why that's a completely stupid thing to say.

Then again you continue to insist that science is apparently a religion because it covers the same topics religion does, so maybe I really am wasting my time.

Religion is a faith-based belief reliant on the personal subjective feelings of its adherents.

Science is a demonstrable, evidence-based system which is reliant on results and predictability and is responsible for literally all of the technology and infrastructure you're using right now. There's no faith allowed, it either works or it doesn't.

This bullshit notion that the DoE/DoJ is teaching religion in school because science overlaps with religious claims is fucking stupid. Religions claim all sorts of things, their explanations are demonstrably wrong. The bible, for instance, claims that painting stripes onto cattle will make the cattle bear striped children. That's wrong, period, and a basic understanding of genetics will make it clear why.

This point taken to its extreme, you might as well say that engineering is religious because Christianity talks about the Tower of Babel.

It's stupid, and yet you keep saying it as if somehow repeating the same words is going to change that.

And this conversation is over if you say "it's just a theory" one more time. It has been explained to you, more than once now, why that's a completely stupid thing to say.

Last time I checked you were not GOD nor were you on staff of Current so this conversation is already over because I am not stupid and I am entitled to express my opinion just as freely as you are and I HAVE NOT called you names or insulted your intelligence during this entire debate.

It is also you who is misinformed because we are not talking about what is professionally taught as science we are talking about what my child came home from Jr high school last month and told me they were studying in science.

But you also continue to explain to me how stupid you think I am but you never have answered my fundamental question which is why is the big bang being taught in science or even taught at all when it is obvious that people from all walks of life and all religious or non religious backgrounds hold various ideas or thoughts on how the universe was formed or-- god forbid I say the word-theories- about the creation of the universe?

What is this? I never said I was god. "This conversation is over if" means I'm going to stop talking to you if you do that again. A conversation being the exchange of information between two people, yes? Get over yourself.

And whine all you want, you've called plenty of people plenty of names, even if you didn't call me any.

But contrary to your assertions, I never called you any names. I said that certain things you said were stupid, I didn't call you stupid. There's a big difference there. Even really smart people can believe really dumb things.

To address your point, and I'll do this as simply as possible...

...your opinion is -irrelevant-.

And this has been explained to you before too.

It doesn't matter what you think because you have NO IDEA how any of this shit works, and you haven't even bothered to try and find out.

I'm sure "plenty of people" have "plenty of ideas" how the pyramids were built or how airplanes work or what comets are or what the moon is made out of or what causes cancer.

Unless they are engineers, astrophysicists, chemists, doctors or other learned people or unless they're educated citizens who've taken the time to educate and investigate for themselves, their opinions are totally useless.

Should we teach that the moon is made of cheese because it's someone's opinion?

How many times does this need to be repeated?

There are no opinions when it comes to FACTS. And there are definitely no valid opinions about theories if you don't KNOW the facts.

I may walk up to your car and claim that fairies run your engine and I may even demand that should be taught in school. But it doesn't matter because I can't prove that and, incidentally, it's not true.

This may come as a shocker, but you're not qualified to speak on most matters. It's why no one comes to you for professional medical advice about brain surgery or asks you to do the calculations to send a satellite into orbit or to write a brute force algorithm for a super-computer that will crack password encryption.

Because you and I don't know about any of those things, except maybe at a basic or common experience level.

And for the same reason, what most people think about evolution really does not change the reality of it.

When it comes to matters of facts, no one cares what uninformed people think. Nor should they if they cared about what's true.

Science, engineering, mathematics and the like are not art, politics or philosophy. We don't all get a turn if we haven't done the homework.

It's not a subjective notion, what you THINK does not change what IS.

said like a true Christian!!!

we would be front seat for the most unique train wreck ever

No, she's technically retarded.

It doesn't matter; what matters is the interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution. For many decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted the "Supreme Law of the Land" to provide a "Separation of Church & State."

The Court rarely overrules itself, and Law is based on precedent. And there we have it, ladies & gents!

I love the double chin. :D)

I thought that exact thing.

The sad part is 27% of them are laughing with her.

Get this person studio time and a microphone STAT!

well said, Carlos

The Founders intended average Americans to run this Country. I mean do you think they wanted it ran by Political Dynasties and connected Oligarchs? Christine O'Donnell is a STUPID American not merely an average American there is a BIG difference.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Farmers, Masons, Merchants, Shippers, doctors, lawyers, and Small businessmen of all sorts It was a very good mix. Now most of them are Lawyers.

if you want above average better go republican

Yes it was, but the founder fathers weren't as religious as you would think, and they wrote the Constitution.

No one said anything about not allowing freedom of religion. We are talking about the government endorsing a religion.

Well please mention that to Ms. O'Donnell. I'm sorry, I'm just tired of the Christian bullshit. I hate to sound prejudiced but it's starting to get out of hand. The day they supplement religious doctrine into public school curriculum is the day I pull my future children out of the system.

Well, there's also the Freedom FROM Religion, which is logically included.

Yours is one of the first intelegent posts I have read here today. No one intended for the first amendment to eliminate religion from the government. only to keep the government from interfering with religion and establishing one religion as a national religion. The idea that people can not pray simply because they are on some state owned land, does not make any sense to any one except one who thinks government has all the answers.

LOL! yer hilarious! you must be new.

Hey, I hate to break it to you, but its spelled "intelligent"... not intelegent.

As for the overall message, I completely disagree. The first amendment is definitely for keeping religion out of government run programs. No one is stopping those who would like to pray on state owned land. However, you are inferring that by stopping public schools or courthouses from holding prayers is somehow getting in the way of people's rights to worship, well you are just being illogical or dishonest. Students can pray whenever they wish. But for a public school to mandate a time for prayer would be the government enforcing students of all backgrounds to recognize a time to worship, thereby going against the Constitution. The same rule applies to the court house. The first amendment does make sense to anyone that has not studied the United States history and Constitution with integrity and clarity.

Yes I can cut and paste from wiki as well using selective interpretation:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

So please remove God from my money and the Pledge of Allegiance now. Thanks.

You are contradicting yourself. The restriction on religions are that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This means the government can not make any laws that enable one religion over another. Because any favoritism would be "respecting an establishment of religion". So that means that the church is supposed to stay out of the state's business because any interference would be favoritism towards that religion. Any of you that think the government should be enabling their religion, such as teaching creationism in school. You should imagine what would happen if you keep this precedent. Any religion that the majority starts to follow would be in control of the others. So if Catholicism became the prominent religion then we'd all have to pray to Mary in school. If Islam rose to prominence then we'd all have to stop working/school and pray once a day. Even if you didn't believe. So before you start shoving your religion down everyones throats please consider the alternative.

founded on religious liberty.

AMEN!

have you taken this test before LOL??

Yep, it was required to graduate the 8th grade. Got 100% btw.

Here it is if you would like to take it . . . don't peak at the answers though.

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/constitution-test.html

They made us take it in 7th or 8th grade in Middle School and then in 12th we really did some analyzing of the Constitution....so yeah the bitch should know a little about it

Never seen that before, this should be given to every 8th grader.

I think it's a disease. Sheeple tend to get it the worst. Kind of like Hoof an Mouth or hoof in mouth maybe??

People have an addiction to believe in things with no merit (O'Donnell, "Avatar", W Jr., Palin, Michael Bay, Bono, etc.).

I frequently hear complaints about so called liberals and free thinkers "needing to go against the majority to be happy".
I think, in reality, it's the so called conservatives and traditionalists who need to go against logic and evidence to be happy.

Short answer: Yes and very common....i.e. The Rick Roll, 4chan, Beiber....etc