All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

quote:

---

that evolution was not first and foremost science

---

Yeah, but that kinda depends on about what decade you intend terms here "first and foremost" to predicate or interdict.I consider rejection of German set theory and acceptance of Haekel's ART as the same problem. Frege thought Cantor simply mistaken to think that any number of times around a painting and a music score might be equipollent. The critique of judgements about the sublime were subsumed in the this Germany which Mayr has attempted to distance our WWII sensibility from but I dont think successfully as to the maths that he ALSO rejects IN THE SAME TIME(frame) but if you meant first and foremost in Faraday's early years and refer to the "chain of being" things get quite a bit harder to even look like what you said is correct. Gould, one of the best historians of evolution if nothing else (empirical truth of pe etc) has not had an extripator of his wordings, as of yet, and yet I dont know about where you intend this foreground to date range wise.Could you indicate a half century please?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-30-2005 05:32 PM

Well, you can always just claim that you believe he rejects it for some other reason, but most scientists that reject evolution state they are rejecting based on the evidence.Basically, your argument is not falsifiable because it consists of impugning the motives of people that you don't know and yet you will insist they are lying if they say they reject evolution based on the evidence.Btw, you do realize that some men like Behe don't reject evolution based on the Bible, and he does not appear to be a YEC or a creationist.

Brad, I am sorry, but I am not following your writing. You've got to break it down, main point and supporting points maybe or something.I agree that much of evolutionism has adopted some real science in the past 40 years, specifically in genetics study, but the style and manner in which evolution is taught has remained embedded with pseudo-science and is reflective of ideological indoctrination.

several posts by CK not replied to by randman... This exchange spirals downward from here.Msg 80, Randman states he has sat through a presentation of evidence by this professor.Msg 83, CK offers 100 pounds for someone to show the evidence in the prior post - states hearsay is not evidenceIMO Charles did NOT say randman was lying about seeing this teacher's presentation and the offer of 100 pounds was not for evidence that rand had seen it.Charles said rand was lying concerning the paraphrase listed in msgs 75 and 76. The offer of 100 pounds was to anyone who could find evidence of what this professor presented (asked for in msg 76)Rand responded with the claim that he had seen the presentation.ARGH...this is ridiculous....Randman is suspended for 24 hours for seemingly deliberately misrepresenting what was said and CK suspended for 24 hours for the RANDMAN IS A LYING BULLSHITTER titleThis thread closed for the same period of time. Please take any problems with this action to the appropriate thread in my signature box.AbE - reopened thread due to comment here Message 160This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 07-30-2005 05:01 PM

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I am asking you to provide evidence that that is what they state. All we are getting from you is hearsay. Wrong. My argument is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is provide evidence that scientists have looked at the evidence for evolution and rejected evolution based on the evidence. I am not impugning anybody's motives. I'm asking you to provide evidence that that is what their motives are. All we have seen so far is your assertion. Now you are impugning my motives.All I'm asking for is evidence that real scientists have rejected evolution based on the evidence. When you have produced that evidence and I have examined it, then you can judge my reaction.

---

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

The topic of this thread is whether or not evolutionary scientists have been too indoctrinated to be objective in their examination of data. It might be more relevant to discuss what evolutionary scientists deal with evidence; the behavior of scientists who reject evolution is relevant, at best, only as a comparison.

Fair enough. I just didn't want to leave those points unanswered in case some poor innocent was mislead.

---

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

iano, indoctrination may be responsible for many people's belief in evolution. Certainly highschool students do not typically examine the research themselves - they simply accept it on the authority of their teachers and textbooks.Actual research scientists, however, the people who write research papers and modify the Theory of Evolution, who use its mechanism every day in their experiments, have done more.As I said previously, scientists are encouraged to disprove accepted theory (whether by a small change to make sure it matches new data, or by totally disproving the entire mechanism). The very principle of science is to question everything. Theories exist to be tested. Science is, by its very nature, set to counteract any "indoctrinated" beliefs in persuit of the provable truth.Because of this it's difficult to imagine an evoltionary scientist believing in the ToE simply because he was indoctrinateds that way. You need to provide evidence that the indoctrination actually occurs.

I understand. I'm usually not such a stickler for staying on-topic, but, to be truthful, I don't see much value in the exchange between you and randman, and I still have some hope that the main topic of this thread might become interesting.

Frankly I see this as almost exactly the same argument as CPT or ID. It's just Toss Out Some Supposition and debate if that supposition is possible. The basic issues are never dealt with, but rather discussion is drawn off into the realm of fantasy and philosophy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I fear that you may be right. I agree that this is similar to ID or CPT.Basically, the argument appears to be:I want the world to be a certain way.
The facts indicate that the world is not the way I want it to be.So, I must either accept that the world is not as I would wish,or I must find a way to convince myself that all of the scientists are wrong.Like the IDists and CPTites, the OP seems to be committed to the second choice.However, I still think that the questions in the OP could lead to an interesting conversation, if iano is sincerely interesting in discussing the question. At worst, it is always interesting to see what logical contortions people are willing to suffer in order to maintain the painted backdrop that they identify with the real world.

If a belief in the TOE is simply a matter of indoctrination, what would we see?Would the changes that have been made in the theory have happened if it were Dogma?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's a good question. In one breath the creationists say that evolutionary scientists either ignore inconvenient data or twist it to fit the theory, then in the next breath they claim that the theory of evolution is so elastic that it can be changed to fit any sort of data whatsoever. They certainly aren't consistent on this point, are they?Anyway, let us suppose that the theory of evolution is incorrect as a description of the history of life on earth, and let us suppose that the data contradicts the theory of evolution without ambiguity. Then I think a better question to ask would be:What sort of process would be necessary to so indoctrinate evolutionary scientists that they would be unable to see that the data contradicts the theory of evolution?Having had some experience in the sciences, and so knowing how science operates, and knowing something about how people actually deal with real data and their beliefs, I would think one would need a combination of intensive brainwashing (that is, complete isolation of the subjects from the outside world, and the subjects being exposed to the desired message without break their entire waking moment), coupled with some sort of selection process that would reject the subjects that were not susceptible to this brainwashing. I certainly do not see how having the word "evolution" mentioned a bunch of times on TV and normal primary and secondary school students being exposed to evolution for one small part of the school day for one small part of the school year could result in this sort of brainwashing.At any rate, then given this totalitarian mind-control scenario, I would say that, no, I would not expect that it would be possible for any changes that have occurred to be possible -- the subjects (sad victims that they would be) would be too indoctrinated to move even slightly off the recieved dogma. But then, I could be wrong -- I am not familiar enough with this sort of pathology.

Some of the language has gotten well aggravated which is a pity. Could we not take a peek at msg 48 from Sidelined again as an inspiration of how to voice a point without upsetting folk (I'm not saying I'm not guilty of riling folk myself but its best we try and stay friends. We might be eaten by the same worm someday and have no choice but to get on with each other). I'm going to try my very best not to be smart, cutting, rude etc myself anyway...I've edited post 1 to include:a definition of indoctrination (to clear that point up)
2 theses from discussion so far.The real issue I think is less to do with some kid watching dinosaur programmes and more to do with what happens in the scientific world - but I've had problems getting people to accept that EI occurs so must establish that before I can move on to what happens laters. See what you think of them.Ian

Look, that's just stupid. There is no "EI" that occurs, so why would we accept that it does? Unless we're supposed to believe that teaching the model that's actually supported by all the evidence is "indoctrination"?What's your experience in the sciences, again?It's ridiculous to assert that scientists are brainwashed and indoctrinated when the entire scientific process is one of mutual competition and attempts to undermine theory. The idea that you could get all scientists everywhere to agree to some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous. Maybe you've heard of this thing they give out, called the Nobel Prize? Do you know who gets that? The people that overturn accepted theories; the people that smash through orthodoxy; the people that uncover scientific instruction as indoctrination. In other words you're asking me to believe that somebody, somehow, convinced hundreds of thousands of people to turn their back on a million dollar prize and the acclaim of the world, all in order to stick it to a religion that, in point of fact, about 30% of these people actually belong to themselves. Do you understand why I might find that a little hard to believe?You never replied to my post 30, either, so I'll pose the question again - why is it, if evolution is indoctrinated lies and creationism is the little-known truth, that evolution produces results and new technologies and creationism has never produced anything at all except evolution?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-31-2005 03:10 PM