All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

I said I wouldn't discuss off-topic or deal with personal testimony - so as to save time (it's Saturday and the hedge needs trimming!).Just this once...I can think of no method whereby a person cannot be indoctrinated. That's why I've posted this thread. That means obviously, I too can be. I believed blindly that Evolution was true, before I began to wonder about the effects of indoctrination. Now I believe that no one can say anything about it with any certainty. Indoctrination overules the science - unless a mechanism whereby indoctrination can be taken account of is discovered. Until such a mechanism is discovered and applied, then investigating evolution science is futile.Like, it's not that evolution science does anything actually ... useful. Unlike so many other areas of science. It's just the science-equivilent of history (not that I disparage history, which is of course useful - eg: Pythagorus' theorom ) I've never implied that scientists are incapable of critical thought. But now that you mention it, it occurs to me that 'critical' doesn't imply correct. I'm sure some critical thought went in to figuring out whether Zyklon B or firing squad was the best way to exterminate millions in the 1940's. You can critically think all you like - it says nothing about the correctness of the track your on.OP/EI/MI from now on, okay?

iano,

quote:

---

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.

---

That isn't analogous to what you are claiming with respect to evolution. What would be analogous, if I am reading the OP correctly, would be, "the constant exposure of people to Christian messages indoctrinates them into Christian thinking, and so Christians view the evidence through Christian-tainted lenses."If the claim was that the huge mass of Christians were hopelessly indoctrinated into Christian theology so that they would be unable to look at data objectively and reach conclusions contrary to their theology, then that claim, too, would be incorrect.-

quote:

---

The MI presented has nothing in it which indicates that EI can be withstood by these defences.

---

First things first; if I am reading the OP correctly, you are claiming that the exposure to the concept of evolution is an effective means to indoctrinate a large number of well educated people against an objective evaluation of real life data. That has not yet been demonstrated. It is premature to talk about whether indoctrination can be withstood by some defenses until it is established that there is something to be defended against. You have not yet demonstrated that these "evolutionary messages" are as pervasive in the environment of the greatest number of biological scientists as you claim, nor that the exposure to these messages are sufficient to cause the kind of indoctrination you are claiming.-

quote:

---

The above would read "real world data viewed through EI-tinted spectacles".

---

Data is data. Facts are not infinitely malleable. Either the data is consistent with a scientific theory, or it is not. Some creationists insist that "it is all a matter of interpretation" -- what they either don't realize, or hope that their audience doesn't realize, is that what they are implying is not just a matter of "interpretation" -- they are talking about stretching facts to an incredible degree and incredible logical contortions. That, too, needs to be demonstrated before it can simply be accepted.-

quote:

---

How could science then, now and forever, demonstrate that indoctrination isn't contaminating it's science?

---

It is not yet the problem of science to demonstrate that it isn't being contaminated by indoctrination -- it is up to those making the claim of indoctrination to demonstrate that this contamination exists. In fact, the issue isn't "contamination" -- the issue is whether scientists are, by and large, able to overcome their predisposed assumptions to reach contrary conclusions when examining real life data. Again, before science can be required to defend itself from these charges, the charges must be shown to have some credibility.I have brought up several historical examples where scientists were able to overcome their predispositions to reach entirely new and profound conclusions. You claim that currently science is different -- that it is, but you have neither specifically mentioned which differences are relevant, nor that those differences can result in the kind of indoctrination which you are claiming.There is a whole body of psychological research on the question of indoctrination and "brainwashing". There is no evidence that indicates that it is even possible to indoctrinate so many people in such varied circumstances so they are incapable of objectivity; certainly not through the type of exposure to the theory of evolution that currently exists in our culture.

For anyone whose has somehow managed to conclude this from the OP or MI I've edited to expand a little on the MI.

Am I the only one who read the OP?

quote:

---

... it is impossible for such scientists to claim they can to be objective about evidence which they use to argue that evolution is true

---

If it is impossible for them to be objective, how does that not imply lack of critical thought? But Zyklon B was the best way to exterminate people. It was the extermination (politics) that was wrong, not the science. Don't confuse the application with the science itself.-------------But the bottom line here is that all you have is a bare assertion that "all scientists are indoctrinated". You have provided absolutely no evidence that your premise is true.This forum is called "Is it science?" Do you know what two of the most common hallmarks of pseudoscience are?1. They make up their own jargon. Creationists have "polystrate fossils" and "macroevolution". You have "EI" and "MI".2. They have no evidence to back up their conjectures.So, if you want to move out of the realm of pseudoscience, you'll need to provide some evidence that all scientists are indoctrinated.Let me help you get started on that:What do you suppose would constitute evidence that your premise is true? What observations from the real world would allow us to distinguish somebody who is indoctrinated from somebody who is not?

---

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

Conspiracy or no, you still need to provide evidence that the indoctrination exists.I could just as easily speculate that all creationists are possessed by demons, and propose a mechanism by which that possession took place.It isn't science unless you can provide evidence.

---

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

My OP points out that the vast majority of folk in the world were exposed to EI. Being exposed to indoctrination is not the same thing as 'being indoctrinated'. My contention that all evolutionary-believing scientists believe because they have been EI'd. How or why some people are not EI'd is not the issue here (although an obvious way is the case where someone just doesn't give a hoot about science). The issue is how evolutionary-believing scientists can know or can show, that their science isn't filtered through EI-tinted glasses.This message has been edited by iano, 30-Jul-2005 05:09 PM

quote:

---

The issue is how evolutionary-believing scientists can know or can show, that their science isn't filtered through EI-tinted glasses.

---

No that's entirely back to front. You need to demonstrate that the effect exists first. You seem to misunderstand how this works, you make the claim, you provide the evidence.So in your next post try the following:My first piece of evidence is

One has to seperate an "analytic demonstrability" from a demonstration.I was not interested in creationism, creation science or ID but simply GIVEN (if true or not) "millions of years" then how could energy be extracted from form but in retrospect icr creos developed in the 70s FROM a poor evo attitude of the 60s which essentially relied on fly spittle. During that time Provine was getting the maths wrong from Wright. Gladyshev was recieving witness in Great Britian and I was still thinking about how herp shape might translate into energy differences via a thought I made at Hunterdon Central High School (after I attended TH Torrence at Princeton Theological Seminary discuss LIGHT, EINSTEIN and Science&Religion).In the 80s after the debacle at Cornell with reference to how math and biology IS STILL BEING done at oxFORd I began to READ to mainly ICR material and CONcluded that indeed until a transitional form energy conversion mechanism was blueprinted and published, creationists continued to have a point that evolutionists *of any stripe* needed to heed. The CE lit since is mainly about evos apologizing for not needing to do this (by simple extension of prior evos' literature etc) and creos slightly changing the talking points to match political reality to any other insights not being proctored in the secular educational moves ment to educate the youth etc etc etc. The lite dawned on chemcially informed Russian biologists about things not Lysenko and it was short order for me to see how there might be a 'readable' extension of the genetic code that operates to explain that transitional forms need not be tendered as was being scientifically gain said despite the the protests of creationsists stongly and correctly on the offense. The biological defence still had a Haekalian underbelly. That is no more for the synthetic biologist able to follow at leat what Ben has here on EvC!!It seems that energy conversion formally could be ocurring in loose connective tissue and is maintained embyronically by yolk liprotein as the linear chromosomal information is tranlsated into functional groups by carbon side chain extensions of the DIFFERENTLY AVAILABLE 1-D symmetries of polymers of any zebra"". This remands a discontinuous biological time which I have yet to justify the praxis and thus such clear usefulness but the point is not if this has any relative frequency in the real world but rather only that it can be thought and thus is not opinion at a heart of the difference of e/c --(i dont sean how iano will simply correctly chalk this down to nationally taught diffs)--. There can always be the question of understanding me but this much I can clear up with any other post.Yes I wear glasses but this is not personal opinion. Instead indeed it involves not innuendo or any such doctoring but rather a disciplined comparative reading of texts only. I feel that both creation and science are uplifted in the systematic application during processesing the process of such. All philosophy aside, I can not say that I MUST have reached to this writing simply if there were NO CREATION and biology was all there was instead. That, was opinion but also not indoctrination. It might have been of such a community IF I had completed a bacculareate at CORNELL and went to ICR but instead I used the internet and the time away from the ordinary life most others lead a family through.

Merrian Webster on-line dictionary:Indoctrination:
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.Imbue:
1 : to permeate or influence as if by dyeing
2 : to tinge or dye deeplyEvidence of EI, Part 1:
Evolution is a partisan/sectarian theory. Up until the time of Darwin, Science held that the world was created by an ordered, logical being (God). Evolution posed a mechanism whereby God could be dispensed with. Some would say that Evolution is the partisan/sectarian Gospel according to Darwin and Co. Evidence of EI, part 2
Millions of people around the globe are permeated with the idea that evolution is true - whilst having absolutely no means by which to evaluate the claim. ImbuementQ.E.D.

quote:

---

Evolution is a partisan/sectarian theory. Up until the time of Darwin, Science held that the world was created by an ordered, logical being (God). Evolution posed a mechanism whereby God could be dispensed with. Some would say that Evolution is the partisan/sectarian Gospel according to Darwin and Co.

---

But that simply not true - Evolution says nothing at all about the hand of God - that's just your take on it. It also totally overlooks the historical impact of creationists on the sciences. in additon "The world was created" - again nothing at all to do with evolution.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 12:31 PM

On the contrary. I think it's the crux of the issue.You claim that scientists are indoctrinated to "believe" in evolution and that indoctrination prevents them from examining the evidence objectively. If some, or many, are immune to the indoctrination, then some, or many, can be objective. If some, or many, are objective, then your attack on evolution fails.Remember your OP:

quote:

---

one logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact. It is not true

---

Conversely, if your case doesn't hold together - i.e. if a significant number of scientists are not indoctrinated - we have no reason to doubt evolution.So, your mechanism needs to account for:1. Why some scientists may not be indoctrinated.2. What proportion of scientists are and are not indoctrinated.And you need to provide data that supports your mechanism.

---

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

False. Therefore, doesn't qualify as evidence. "Some peoples' opinion" does not constitute evidence. So you say. But that is the question, not the answer. So you say. But that is the question, not the answer. Huh?I asked you for evidence, not a mathematical proof. And you gave me neither.Do you know what evidence is?Let's try again:How do you think we could look at a person objectively and decide whether or not he has been incoctrinated? What are the symptoms? What tests can we perform on him to determine the level of indoctrination?

---

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

By the way, another characteristic of pseudoscience is the insistence that real science should prove them wrong.The onus is on you to prove yourself right.

---

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

quote:

---

In the 80s after the debacle at Cornell....

---

Tell me about debacles! I am now winding down another failed attempt at a PhD. (Sigh) My mother will never be able to say her eldest son is a "doctor".

quote:

---

Evolution is a partisan/sectarian theory. Up until the time of Darwin, Science held that the world was created by an ordered, logical being (God). Evolution posed a mechanism whereby God could be dispensed with. Some would say that Evolution is the partisan/sectarian Gospel according to Darwin and Co.

---

So now we see what the real issue is. Since this is a response to Ringo, he gets credit for smokin' 'im out.