All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

Thanks for being confident enough to agree with at least a little of what I say - rather than debate the obvious (to me at least). But I haven't got time to educate myself to sufficient level, yet still would like to know if evo can be true. And EI is there so I need to see that 'Science' can stop it or counteract it. Which is why I'm here It was a unnecessary quip on my part that generated this but now that your here, could you give me a thumbnail sketch of how a knowledge of evo can account for modern medicines cure ability? If I knew then it's a surefire way to guard against such quips in the future.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-31-2005 02:47 PM

I did read it all and gathered you argue that the process by which you came to believe ensured that EI couldn't operate. But again-due to my own limitations, your writing leaves me unclear if this is what your saying and if so how you achieved this. I repeat, I ain't that smart! I 'know' the God exists, but whenever I tell people that, the first thing the ask is 'proof?' However, I not askin that individual folk prove they haven't been EI'd. I'm asking how they assume they haven't been, given it's so prevalant. I think you agree (strongly even) that EI exists. No apparent widespread mechanism appears to be present in the body Science to resist it's effects. If this is the case then my OP is the most natural thing to ask.There may be cases where it's possible for someone to totally self-educate themselves without reference to what my OP implies is EI'd literature,magazines papers,lecturers etc. If you could indicate a reasonable mechanism whereby this could happen (reasonable will do) then I'm sure it would be highly unusual and not at all typical. In which case I'll modify my OP to read 99.9% of Evo scientists..."

Hi Modulous. I'm attempting to show that you cannot accept any claim made for evolution being 'true'. This on the basis of it being contaminated by EI . If all claims can't be held to be true - due to them being so contaminated, then evolution isn't true. If something not being true means its 'falsified then that's how you do it. You don't necessarily need to know the first thing about it to do this. At what point exactly does the EI stop - given that it starts at a young age. Your lecturers believe it, your text books explain things in the context of it. At what point in your life are you not subject to it? Yet Science relies on objectivity - even if the objectivity stems from internal self-correction-by-peer (which I haven't seen the mechanism for w.r.t. EI yet). As far as I can make out, the 'evidence' that Darwin presented to support his theory was such as to ensure his shredding had he appeared on EvCforum. The reasons for the take up of his ideas lay less in science but in other areas (athiesm vs theism), eg: it levelled the playing field a bit. Or so I'm told. I don't know either way.Your right about the Creation-tinted spectacles. Method based-Science was born on the basis that the world was the logical, predicatable and ordered product of a Creator. If Newton, Keppler,Linneus,Kelvin etc, etc had for one moment thought is was the result if random action then they probably wouldn't have bothered. Like, if the structure and thoughts in your brain are the result of random movement of atoms, why on earth would you have any reason to trust anything it tells you?Anyway back to topic Close (and you forced me to look up what a non-sequitur is!). If EI can be shown to inhabit all evolutionary conclusion then no-one can state that any of it is objective. A science about which you could say, "none of it is objective" is dead in the water.Aarghh...late. That pints waiting. Gotta go!!!

The definition of objective will include a phrase like "evaluate while excluding personal beliefs". The defintion for critical doesn't have such a phrase.IOW, you can be critcal whilst being influenced by personal belief eg: EINot that it matters much either way. I don't claim that scientists are capable of critical thought (if by critical you mean excluding personal belief). Scientists are people. And people are people until proved otherwise. If Ph. D = your proof, then show mechanism by which personal belief if excluded from their thinking

One can disagree with the proposal "Hitler was right" yet still debate in favour of it. In debate, motivation is irrelevant. I won't answer any more posts regarding motivation due to time constraints. I do see something. And it is the idea of the thread ie: first let's examine whether one can attain non-EI'd knowledge before embarking on a course of 'education'. Sidelines post was good for demonstrating how to post cooly and calmly. His points however took little account of the problem of EI though - except maybe to agree it occurs pre-college and to express faith in Science. Faith however isn't scientific. I hope to demonstrate (logically, not with scientific proof) that evolutionary scientists cannot be objective (ie: exclude personal ideaology) in their science. But Rome wasn't built in a day. I've got to get my theses up and standing before adding more. If it can be shown that scientists cannot be objective about evolution then no evolution evidence can have basis in fact. It may be right it may be wrong - but who knows. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Opinion is not fact or truth no matter how many people have it. Facts and truth must be established as such. They must be objective to be fact/truth You believe in evolution I presume. Are you a peer who has reviewed a published paper in any field of Evo science (not that that would provide iron-clad basis of no EI. But that'll come later) ? If not how can you prove your belief. If you can't then on what basis do you believe it. A faith-basis is the only one I can think of. Faith isn't science, it's Religion I don't have to prove whether the MI is blind or conspiratorial. That it exists it enough to support EI. I'm inclinded to think blind because conspiracy seems far less likely. But it doesn't matter which it is. Maybe. But you try go refuting Evo on this site with a tack like that and see how far you get. Detecting inconsistancies is not proof of anything. Like there are inconsistancies with Evo (which caused folk to come up with Panspermia and Punctuated Equilibrium) Detecting inconsistancies doesn't mean anything is proved one way or the other. But a 'fairly good knowledge' is not considered sufficient for him to argue for or against anything. According to folk here you must be Expert In Your Field, have published in that field etc,etc to be qualified to comment. I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure a anesethist has a good idea of heart surgery but I'd prefer it if a cardiologist was the one cutting into me. We know EI exists. Have the effects of it on objectivity in Science ever been tested with psychological or social studies. Or are you extrapolating here.Re: your questions. If you want to open a thread entitled FoL by all means do so. I won't be on it though, have me hands full here Suggestion CF; can we debate single issues at time rather than whole swatches of stuff? It'll help us both to focus and come to grounded conclusions either way.iano

It's not down to me Ringo. You have the problem with two different words, which mean different things, not conferring the same meaning??!!Apple doesn't mean orange - nor should it. Critical by definition doesn't imply Objective.End of discussion on this one.

I have put a definition of Indoctrination up on post 1. It says nothing about truth or falsehood so why do you talk about truth or falsehood with respect to indoctrination? I just say that EI is why people WHO ARE NOT IN POSITION TO EVALUATE yet believe evolution, believe it.I shouldn't be doing this work for you - which is why I don't run to answer your post. If you can answer this question then I'll get into debate with you.What other mechanism can explain why someone believe evolution - if they can't prove it?. To start with go no higher in level than the average man on the street. Leave scientists out for a second.

If the SM was an absolute entity then science which followed SM would be demonstrably objective. But SM isn't absolute. It is a moveable feast. The SM today is not the same as it was before nor is it as it will be in the future. It is not absolute, so someone who follows it faithfully still can't claim objectivity with any certainty.Neither does the existance of an SM ensure folk will follow it faithfully. Einstein cosmological constant: now you see it now you don't - purely on the basis of personal ideology (ie: he was not being objective)To conclude. The existance of SM is not basis for claiming objectivity. It is not absolute so/and there is no way to know if it is being followed. The above shows that EI (which is accepted here to exist (see thesis) - can operate within SM. IOW: SM is subject to EI not necessarily the other way aroundCan we debate SM as a defence against EI for a while CP?

According to you and others, Professors & the very experienced and oft-published in the relevant field. This means that anyone below this level isn't in a position to evaluate(see theses in post 1) and thus believe by EI (ie: faith). In meeting the claims of the OP, I hope to show that no-one is qualified (due to EI/faith). I'm up to Professors level and above at the moment.

Correct. But would you spend a lifetime studying Evolution if you couldn't say anything about the truthfulness of it. My claim is that it could be all false AND there's no way of knowing either way. That's the point of this debate. Anyone agree that science is about subjective points of view?Modulous. You have interesting things to say but we all need to pull back towards the points of debate. This is not a scientific-evidence debate, nor one about feelings (although I understand folk can have strong feeling either way). If anything it errs towards a logical look at EI in evolution. If it can be demonstrated logically that EI is total (or vice versa) then the debate is over. I don't expect Evolution science to stop either way Stuff needs to refer to post 1 incl theses. (Also SM is an area of interest as it is on this that some debate rests as an argument against EI)

Foe those who may have missed my post announcing this, I've added three theses to the post Nr.1 - which arise out of the debate so far.These may be accepted (though I doubt it) or can be argued to help specify the direction of the debate

---

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable" Sir Arthur Keith, Anthropologist.

I'll have a closer look at this CP. Being a rookie I've never heard of a falsification of a proposition but presume you know what you're talking about. It appears a logical enough tack anyway.

"microevolution not macroevolution?" he said tentitively (given that he doesn't want to get into scientific evidence debate with SL -coz he can't!!!)And he then ran off with Chiro's falsification under his arm going "Hmmmm??" and wondering if SL was going to give a thumbnail use-of-evolution-sketch for his scientifically-challenged co-debator. Just for interest like, not debate.

Thanks CK.

---

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable" Sir Arthur Keith, Anthropologist.

It doesn't form part of the debate really, just an aside out of interest. Reminds me though, there's no definition of Evolution in the first post. Talk about moveable feasts eh. Not very SM is it?