How can evolution explain body symmetry?

Shame on you CK! 1805 posts and you'd stoop to attempt to deflect a bambi-like newbie with a trick like that. Not that I'd say your incorrect But that's another days work. Speaking of work...Admin describe this site as "Intellectual cocaine". (S)he wasn't kidding. Man, I'm getting feck all work done today.

I've no reason to think you are, but I'm really not in a position yet to evaluate either way. I'm not supporting ID-ers to the death incidently. I suspect their premise is right but that's because I'm a Christian and ID fits that premise pretty well - not because I've read around a bit of the science. My query here is indoctrination and how it's eliminated from the science of evolution. Let's put the idea of me as a ID-er away. Any comment on indoc.....aahhh... craaaaamp in my fiiiiiiingers... Ouch!

But why mostly in evolution? Could it be because it threatens the "Christian" indoctrination that you don't see? You seem to have a low opinion of the majority. You think that the majority of people are indoctrinated and don't know it - and the minority, including you, see through the indoctrination. Why not the opposite? Why not conclude that the majority - which includes the most educated - sees clearly? Why not conclude that the minority - who know little about evolution - are the ones who are indoctrinated against it? If you did, I must have missed it. Can you elaborate? No. The point of indoctrination is to prevent people from thinking for themselves. I'm not a scientist, but I don't think you can get a Ph.D. without thinking for yourself.Your example of Hitler disproves your own point. Hitler suppressed the intellectuals. He drove the Jewish scientists - e.g. Einstein - out of the country. He was trying to prevent the educated people from exposing his lies.Indoctrination works best on the ignorant. Far be it from me to be on topic but at least mention something near the topic once in a while, to fool the admins.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

quote:

---

Your example of Hitler disproves your own point. Hitler suppressed the intellectuals. He drove the Jewish scientists - e.g. Einstein - out of the country. He was trying to prevent the educated people from exposing his lies.

---

That's why I tried to explain the anarchic nature of the scientific enterprise. Indoctrination only works on such a large number of people if there is some centralized authority to enforce the indoctrination -- a centralized authority that does not exist in the sciences.P.S. Cool avatar.

You couldn't flesh that out a little. Like, type a few more words. You make assumptions about my knowledge which, although flattering, shoot quite a ways higher than they should.

by Ellery Schempp

quote:

---

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

​

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravityis a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

​

he Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

​

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is universal. Secondly, school textbooks routinely take false statements. For example,the moon goes around the earth. If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

​

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's gravity were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.

​

There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons
from the sun and the solar wind actually tends to push earth away.

​

There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.

​

The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

​

Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to prove his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called infinitesimals which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics. Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.

​

To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly turns to laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity, we can see that at the core there is no foundation.

​

Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does explain is far out-weighed by what it does not explain. When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on gravitational calculations. But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his gravitational calculations on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

​

It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a Big Bang, and important limitations in such sports as basketball would be lifted. This would greatly benefit the games and enhance revenue as is proper in a faith-based, free-enterprise society.

​

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on A Wing and a Prayer), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

​

It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase what goes up must come down as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.

​

It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it. Finally, the mere name Universal Theory of Gravity or Theory of Universal Gravity (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such universalism. If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

​

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects,and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed educators, it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

---

by Ellery Schempp posted by Kiri 2/18/2005 on the ARN Intelligent
Design discussion board This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jul-2005 03:46 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jul-2005 03:55 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jul-2005 03:56 PM

Which seems to indicate the reason that Science doesn't have to worry about indoctrination is that the 'Scientific Method' will tend to filter it out. When was this ever tested or is that a philsophical decision? What experiment was ever carried out to see what effects mass indoctrination would have on the observational and conclusional characteristics of particular and very large group of scientists. I suspect there has been none. Faith in the scientific method isn't science, it's faith. I understand the basic tenets of the scientific method as you describe here. However the effects of indoctrination can be placed at a higher level than the method/idea/observations/predictions ... because indoctrination is easily powerful enough to be very thing that defines the method. Forgive this disjointed illustration, if it is one: "We believe in Evo but we find that the theory of gradual evolution is troubled by the Cambrian fossils. What explains this??? Well, it could be punctuated equilibrium..." There is a previous commitment to evolution and the ideas generated are tied umbilically to it. It's a closed loop both in the ideas that will be generated and by the scientific method that drives it - like who is better able to critically evaluate evolution-orientated evidence other that other experts in that field. Who is in a better position to decide whether the stumpy protrusions; which may or may not be precursor legs on a fish' than a scientist whose life is dedicated to the evaluation of stumpy thing - ie: the evolutionary scientist.Is not evolutionary science caught in a cycle of circular reasoning. If not, why not?

You still haven't told us:Why do you think that thousands of people who make their living at critical thinking are more likely to be indoctrinated than you are?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

[qs]CK: But we are even MORE strongly "indoctrinated" about gravity from an early age. If what you say is true we should have a nice simple theory for that and no argument.I asked you to elaborate because I didn't know whether Gravity was a simple theory and you were heaving back the hammer on an irreducibly complex mousetrap - with me as the mouse, or whether Gravity is in fact complex and much argued. Scanning your post suggests the latter. Ya learn summit new everyday. But I gotta be careful CK - I don't know you that well ;0Gravity is something we are indoctrinated to believe is true. Correct. It's turns out to be complex. Fine. A postmans understanding of it will differ from a scientists understanding of it. Okay. But what did I say in my quote that indicates that we should have nice simple theories and no argument. I just asked by what mechanism people could resist the effects of indoctrination.I was asking the question because I'M the one who doesn't know. Your supposed to be the one supplying the mechanism...or maybe saying why a mechanism is unnecessary. You at least seem to agree that 'indoctrination' occursCK: You really aren't playing fair old chap, that's one red herring (christianity), one massive cut n paste and a 'trying to get me to answer my own questions' - all deployed in one day :0

quote:

---

Which seems to indicate the reason that Science doesn't have to worry about indoctrination is that the 'Scientific Method' will tend to filter it out. When was this ever tested or is that a philsophical decision?

---

Well, the scientific method is just a codification of "common sense" -- pretty similar to how most people live their lives. The scientific method is basically the following:1) The observation that universe behaves very regularly, that there are patterns to the phenomena;2) that we can figure out how the universe works by studying the patterns;3) we try to figure out how the universe by coming up with ideas that explain what we see; and4) we test our ideas by noting what else we should see if these ideas are correct and then checking that we see those things.Isn't this how you go about your life? Don't you see patterns in the way the world around you, or is your life simply a series of unrelated and unpredictable events? Don't you have ideas and beliefs that help you sort out the events that happen in your life? When something unexpected happens, don't you try to figure out how it fits into your beliefs, and if you can't do that don't you alter your beliefs or even chuck them in favor of new beliefs?Maybe not -- people are different I guess. But this is such common sense to me that I'm surprised to find that people behave different. Maybe you can explain why you find the scientific method inadequate for explaining the world.-

quote:

---

What experiment was ever carried out to see what effects mass indoctrination would have on the observational and conclusional characteristics of particular and very large group of scientists.

---

I think it has been done, in a fashion. At one time all European geologists were indoctrinated into believing that there was a global flood that occurred roughly 4000 years ago. When they searched for evidence of this flood, not only did they find no evidence but the results of their studies showed that the earth had to be millions of years old, at the very least. So I would say that indoctrination seems to have a rather limited effect when scientists are honestly searching and trying to learn about the world around us.How about you? Do you have any evidence that "indoctrination" will prevent the scientific community from recognizing when its theories are incorrect?--

quote:

---

: "We believe in Evo but we find that the theory of gradual evolution is troubled by the Cambrian fossils. What explains this??? Well, it could be punctuated equilibrium..."

---

First, if you are referring to the "Cambrian explosion", then punctuated equilibrium was invoked to explain this. The "Cambian explosion" is easily explained by noting that this "explosion" occurred over several tens of millions of years -- long enough to be accounted for by gradual evolution.Second, punctuated equilibrium does not contradict gradual evolution. Punctual equilibrium simply postulates that the rate of visible evolutionary change varies from very, very gradual to just gradual. Even during the times of quickest evolutationary change, it is still gradual evolution.Third, punctuated equilibrium was discovered by examining the data. The fossil record shows that the rate of evolutionary change was not constant for all species at all times. Before punctuated equilibrium, there was no reason to assume that the rate of change was constant. There was no scientific laws that required it to be constant. If constant rate of change was assumed, it was because it was the simplest assumption to make; but there was no other reason for this assumption and it was abandoned once the data showed that the assumption was flawed.Finally, this is the way every scientific theory works. No scientific theory explains everything it is supposed to; every scientific theory has to contend with unexplained observations. It was discovered that the planet Uranus did not follow Newton's laws. Did this imply that there was a problem with Newton's laws? It was hypothesized that there was an additional planet whose gravitational attraction was affecting Uranus' orbit. Was this the result of indoctrination? You can call it "indoctrination" if you want, but it seems sensible to wait until other hypotheses are examined before simply abandoning a theory that has been wildly successful. Sure enough, the planet Neptune was discovered, right where Newton's laws said it should have been.-

quote:

---

Who is in a better position to decide whether the stumpy protrusions; which may or may not be precursor legs on a fish' than a scientist whose life is dedicated to the evaluation of stumpy thing - ie: the evolutionary scientist.

---

Except that these "stumpy things" looked just like the theory of evolution predicted that they would look. That various degrees of "stumpy" -- from obvious fins to obvious legs and all manner inbetween -- have been found, just like the theory of evolution predicted they should be. That these various degrees of "stumpy" are found in the exact order in the fossil sequence -- more fin-like "stumpy" below more leg-like less"stumpy -- just like the theory of evolution says they would. That the fish possessing these "stumpy things" show other features that are in between fish and terrestrial vertebrates -- more fin-like = more fish-like in other characteristics, more leg-like = more amphibian-like in other characteristics, just like evolution says it should be.It isn't as if people believe that evolution is true and then just try to fit random facts into it. For over 150 years evolution has made very definite predictions. These predictions did not have to be observed, yet they were. Various phenomena have been proposed that would disprove evolution -- these phenomena could have been observed but they haven't. And this is with thousands of scientists in different disciplines using different methodologies over a century and a half. I am still waiting for some evidence that this could be the result of "indoctrination".

Hi Ringo... Its irrelevant to a series of questions I've placed, why I pose what I do. I suggest the not to hard to believe proposition that the world and his brother has been indoctrinated with the idea that evolution is true. (whether evolution is wrong or right makes no difference to that). Don't get hung up on the negative sound of the word. It means simply that most people have come to believe it simply because they were repeatedly told so - not becasue they have critically analysed the data for themselves. Do you agree?Could you also agree that at least up until the time they entered science college, the average scientist is really in no better position to evaluate the data for themselves, free of 'exterior forces' than the man in the street?There are a few reasons which set evolutionary indoctrination as a class apart:It is the most prevelent form of mass scientific indoctrination around. I have never watched a programme on Gravity on tv. Neither has my mother or sisters. Mass media is awash with EvolutionIts range is huge. Rather than being a branch of science, it incorporates more branches of science that any other - though I may be wrong.The consequences of it, if it is true, affects everybody on earth: to whit - "you're an animal". That's a very significant thing to be telling people - so its very important that it's right. I don't have a dim view of anybody. If you agree everybody has been helplessly indoctrinated (up to end of college) what defence against it's influence in science? I suggest majority ain't. You say the majority are educated. I say the minority are too. Education clearly isn't the way to counter indoctrination. I agree that education will lessen the effects of an attempt at indoctrination - but how does it help if the indoctrination got there first? It's easy to measure the effect indoctrination may have on a previously clean sample. But how do you do it when the sample arrives contaminated I disagree. Indoctrination has no problem with people thinking for themselves - so long as they do it within set boundaries. If a person with absolutely no tools to evaluate evolution critically, walks into college believing evolution and leaves with a Ph.D, 7 years later still believing it, I can't see that as evidence that totally free thinkng is the process which was tranmitted to them during those years. And whilst some may go in not believing and come out believing, the figures (due to the success of evolution on early years indoctrination) are so massively weighed towards the former Ph.D-er so as to leave insufficient data to presume anything much about the latter True of Hitler ... but then again, he was in a hurry. Indoctrination in fact, works best on the young. They're more believing than the ignorant - who are less likely to give a hoot ...oh yeah.... about body symmetry (thanks for the tip). Anyway, you don't have to slaughter the intellectuals if the intellectuals (if unconciously) are the ones doing the indoctrinating...

No. I don't agree.Speaking for myself, I made it through 12 years of public schools and 4 years of university without ever being told much of anything about evolution. So, where do you suppose I got my "indoctrination"?I also spent decades in evangelical churches, listening to thousands of sermons, without ever hearing much about evolution. But if I was "indoctrinated", which way do you think that indoctrination would have slanted? Well, the person who is interested in science is more likely to be led by facts than by "doctrine". So I would say that he is probably freer of "exterior forces". Don't confuse information with indoctrination. I have never watched a TV program on evolution. What's your point? (And TV might not be the best place for you to get your information, either. ) You are wrong. Evolution isn't actually a "science" at all - it's part of biology. And if other sciences happen to agree with evolution, it's because evolution is right, not because it holds some unholy sway over them. So do the consequences of gravity. What's your point? "You're made of chemicals." Why is that any less devastating? Have we met? I don't agree. Take a look around these forums. Those who oppose evolution very seldom know the first thing about it. They are the ones who are clearly indoctrinated by religion. (You'll find that most of them don't know much about religion either.) You really do have a low opinion of Ph.Ds, don't you? I don't think a person with "absolutely no tools to evaluate evolution critically" would be able to get a Ph.D. in science. Got any kids? Children are very trusting and believing up to a point. But there comes a time in their development when they wouldn't believe you if you said they were on fire. That's when they have the potential to become scientists.The truly ignorant, on the other hand, are incurably ignorant. Once again, see the pages of these forums. Then why do the tyrants always go after the intellectuals first?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

quote:

---

And if other sciences happen to agree with evolution, it's because evolution is right, not because it holds some unholy sway over them.

---

Yes, it still hasn't been answered how do we tell whether scientists are convinced of evolution due to some indoctrination or whether they are convinced of evolution due to it being correct and all the data points to it.Unless, I guess, the Holy Spirit tells you directly that Genesis is literal history.

quote:

---

It could well happen in other areas of science - although I can't think of one where the indoctrination begins at such an early age in such a socially widespread manner.

---

How about children being indoctrinated in the idea that the Earth is a sphere long before they have the ability to examine the data for themselves?

quote:

---

He's a physics lecturer and while knowing a litte, is not immersed in the field (he's rooted on the fence of "I don't know" at the moment).

---

What is a physics "lecturer"?Does he have a degree in Physics?

quote:

---

And it works a lot on those who are immersed in the subject. There are geoligists, paleantologists, anatomists, biochemists etc who are qualified and experienced yet don't believe in evolution.

---

Almost without fail, such qualified people in those fields who do not accept the evidence for Evolution do so upon a religious, not scientific, basis.Scientific advancement progresses through consensus. For an idea to become widely accepted, it must survive many repeated tests by many disinterested parties. IOW, it has to be useful, and it has to be consistent.The theory of evolution has survived, and so we accept it tentatively as the best current explanation of the change in alleles in populations over time.

quote:

---

I asked you to elaborate because I didn't know whether Gravity was a simple theory and you were heaving back the hammer on an irreducibly complex mousetrap - with me as the mouse, or whether Gravity is in fact complex and much argued.

---

Your father is a physics lecturer and he hasn't taught you anything about gravity?How long, exactly, has your father been studying Physics?