All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

One way to try to get a handle on this is to talk with people who once believed in evolution but who have rejected it since that time.That's what occurred with me, and I can definitely see the EI process. It's incredibly widespread with obvious, blatant practices of known propaganda techniques.What is sad is that evolutionists have no awareness it seems for the use of propaganda methods in what they are doing, the false use of imagery being one of them, the asserting of debatable points as facts, and then when the "facts" change, they dogmatically assert the new position as fact.It's sad, but don't expect this board to accept it. Most here seem too steeped into the indoctrination process to accept such criticism of their perception. Sometimes it almost appears there is a need to believe in evolution.

You are clearly wrong because it's obvious that despite his claims of everyone being indoctrinated, which is true for most everyone and thus true in context, he does not claim no one can break out of that indoctrination.Imo, a useful exercise for evolutionists would be to study proganda techniques, talk with former evolutionists, and do some self-examination to see if they are influenced by indoctrination.Having once been indoctrinated by EI, and having come out of that, I can tell you honestly there is indeed an incredible level of indoctrination involved, not so different than some techniques used in cults.But I doubt you want to hear that.

quote:

---

Imo, a useful exercise for evolutionists would be to...do some self-examination to see if they are influenced by indoctrination.

---

Yep, right on schedule. Indoctrination cannot be disproven because any evidence against indoctrination is itself part of the indoctrination.

On the contrary. Read the OP:

quote:

---

... it is impossible for them to demonstrate that they aren't wearing evolution-tinted spectacles every time they weigh up evidence. Spectacles that started tinting when they were young and got increasingly more tinted as time went on....

---

But, even if it is possible to break free, my question was: how do you break free? Been there. Done that. Never met one. Can you name a few hundred for us to contact? Done that. No sign of indoctrination.So, all that remains is for me to talk to all those ex-evolutionists that you talk about. Can you name a few hundred for us to contact?

---

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

I didn't notice his wording before: Wow! He even admits that he is setting us up for an impossible task! Once the accusation of indoctrination is made, it will be impossible to prove it otherwise, since any evidence to the contrary will be considered part of the indoctrination!

I can only name myself and show you areas where propaganda techniques are still employed, often seen in the comments of evolutionists on this board.For example, one technique is to use a lack of precision in language to convey deceptively that something is proven by a fact when it may not actually be according to the data under discussion. Evolutionists do this by saying things like "evolution is a fact" and then explain an example of micro-evolution.The term evolution though is a much more narrow concept than ToE, which is universal common descent. I think evolutionists even know this, but they see no problem with using the term "evolution" interchangeably.That's a propaganda technique, and deceptive to boot.

I knew that.Virtually nobody who has looked at the evidence has turned away from evolution. The movement is entirely in the other direction, and I think you know that.The topic requires you and/or iano to show evidence that indoctrination occurs. I'm still waiting to see the evidence.

---

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

I've shown evidence, and you are wholly wrong to suggest virtually no one that has looked at the evidence switched to abandoning evolution.I certainly did, and quite a few others have as well. There is a botany professor at NC State and quite a few other scientists who have looked at the evidence, and found evolutionism to be wanting.You are disingenious to suggest otherwise.In one sense, I was incorrect to say I could only name myself, and meant that more in the sense I can tell you more intimately of my experience. There are quite a few Phds that have rejected ToE.Do your homework and talk with them.This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 10:59 PM

Where? What evidence? Link to it, repeat it, etc. No more bare assertions. Actually, it's your homework. You made the assertion. You back it up.I have made a very bold statement in denying your assertion. If I am wrong, you should be able to prove it.

---

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

Well this certainly is compelling supporting evidence! Does the purported botany professor have a name? Do the other "scientists" have names and qualifications in an appropriate field to make an informed comment? Have any of these people published their positions for examination by the scientific community? Are you going to name names? Or are you going to claim a global conspiracy of indoctrinated evolutionists who will persecute anyone who breaks the conspiracy?

This is what I want: just one ex-postdoc or preferably ex-tenured biological scientist to come on this forum and refute evolution to the guys here who are in the know. If evolution is so wrong, you must be able to find just one... somewhere. Scour the evangelical church and find someone with respectable qualifications who no longer believes in evolution. Grads and post-grads don't cut it.This is not my science, but I get incredibly frustrated when people not in the know (laymen and grads) claim they can refute evolution. No disrespect Randman, but you don't have the background to back up your claims.I have many YEC friends, and some are grads in the biological sciences. Some are going on to post-gard work in bio-chem. They express disbelief in evolution, but they cannot refute it except by quoting AIG. Even they do not have sufficient knowledge. The biggest thing I learnt in my first post-grad year was that following my degree, I knew NOTHING. My degree merely gave me the basis to start learning. And I am the UK equiv of Ivy-League.If any of the big-shot "evolutionists" on this forum are ever going to get a decent debate, they need someone here with some real knowledge.

Do you mean REAL professor or american "anyone who works in the place has a title of professor" professor*?Can give us the name of this prof or the name of the papers he has submitted making those claims?* no slight intended - but to the british ear, the use of professor by americans can cover a range of people. Best to identify who we mean and narrow his qualifications and expertise at this stage.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 07:31 AM

Thats a problem alright - but not with the proposition. Some here could replace the word Evolution with the word Christianity and have no problem at all with the following point, to whit: numbers of people, culture and extent of exposure are not defences against an indoctrintation, if the indoctrination is able to cross those boundaries. The MI presented has nothing in it which indicates that EI can be withstood by these defences. back to the OP. The above would read "real world data viewed through EI-tinted spectacles". (As an aside, the parallel with Christianity made above applies equally here too when you replace 'real world data' for 'real supernatural data' - again, not at all a compelling proof that Christianity isn't purely a result of indoctrination for many folk here) Which could have been a case of GI - operating in science then. Some may claim that science then isn't as developed as science now and they would be correct. However, the science then that we call 'primative' now, will be precisely be the description of science today 500 years from now. Back to the OP. How could science then, now and forever, demonstrate that indoctrination isn't contaminating it's science?By the way CP. Thanks for dealing with things w.r.t. the OP. I've scanned some later posts and you seem to be one of the few who has

A fuzziness exists regarding the definition of 'right and wrong' whenever an absolute standard against which actions can be measured is missing. A similar fuzziness for 'Scientific Method,(SM)' exists when no absolute, universally accepted definition of SM exists. The fact that SM has evolved and changed over time (witnessed perhaps by the liklyhood that todays SM definition is not the same as that of 300 years ago) and will continue to do so, means that SM is not absolute. SM depends on interpretation and (according to the OP) EI'd scientists will interpret through EI-tinted spectacles. I'll take your word for it. But before they got to the point of learning that, EI had plenty of time to suggest to folk that this theory was fact. You and I may know that theories (in theory) 'remain provisional forever'. The man in the street doesn't and is told that ToE is as sure a fact as that the world is round.OP modification proposal:
Lets use this point made above to modify the OP. Can we modify the OP to state that everybody in the world who believes Evolution to be true, but who does not have the tools to evaluate the data, believes it because of EI? Hardly. You imply that whilst the person may have been indoctrinated up to this point the spectacles are somehow removed and they can see more or less clearly. But you don't include a mechanism by which the EI is magically removed. Well you do. The mechanism is a non-absolute, EI-interpreted SM. I reckon that some branches of science are less exposed to indoctrination that others, so the SM can be better interpreted and applied. My OP however, suggests that EI is so widespread and so total, that the science itself must be binned. It will never be able to haul itself out of the cauldron of indoctrination. A victim of it's own success if you will.Don't forget that scientists are people first, scientists second. Whilst philisophically SM may be about demolishing hypothesis if one can, back in the real world, it can often fall very short of the ideal. The Einstein you referred to above was the same one who inserted a 'cosmological constant' in his general theory of relativity, such was his distaste for the obvious implication - the Universe had a beginning. He removed it later, after meeting Hubble and Lamaitre at Mount Wilson Observatory and seeing for himself that the Universe, it appeared, was indeed expanding. He confessed that adding the constant was "the biggest blunder of my life".(Before folk leap in and use this as an example of Sciences tendency towards self-correction, note Einsteins initial motivation for the constant. He didn't like what his science was telling him and adapted the science so that it would tell what he wanted to hear. Einsteins blunder is an excellent proof that even reaching these heady heights is no defence against an indoctrination (and given his genius, the indoctrination was probably self-inflicted!!) )Scientific Method Rules Okay? Not quite!

It's for certain that, between evolutionists and creationists, one side has the accurate model and one side is indoctrinated with lies.The fact that it's evolutionists who get scientific and practical results with their theory and creationists who get nothing, absolutely nothing at all, is proof that you've got it completely backwards in regards to who is indoctrinated and who is not.