Joel and Travis begin to respond to the deconstruction stories of Rhett and Link, but not in the usual apologetic manner. Instead, they begin to look at how evaluative outlooks play into how we weigh evidence--from issues of benefit of the doubt/burden of proof to our understanding of the nature of truth and an obsession with certainty. Perhaps we've all been doing our "defense of the faith" in a truncated manner that in fact discourages faith?