All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

Hi RingoIf your saying 'critical thinking ensures objectivity' whilst accepting that the definition of critical doesn't imply objectivity then it's you who has to show it, not me. I can't show something I don't believe is possible to show. Given the definitions I've got to work with for both words I cannot make the case. Which has absolutely no detrimental effect on my main claim. Au Cointreu in fact...

'Trouble fitting data to an accepted theory'and 'hypotheis posed to explain the data' What does the hypothesis try to do here. It tries to fit the dissenting data into the accepted theory (or Mother Orthodoxy). I agree and offer an example. Cambrian Explosion. The data (fossils without a smooth evolutionary history) couldn't be explained in the framework of the Daughter Orthodoxy,ie: the, at that time accepted, idea that evolution progressed uniformly and gradually). What was the hypothesis? Explosive evolution called Punctuated Equilibrium. IOW, the hypothesis to explain the jarring data didn't run away from Mother it just replaced the Daughter (although maybe the two exist side by side I don't know Mother has 2 daughters perhaps). My OP would predict such precisely such occurances.(an aside = no debate: Incidently, your model above sounds very ...er....evolutionary. Random mutation (different hypotheses) culled by SM leading to survival of the fittest. Evolution leaking out your pores mate(only kidding!!). Like Evolution, all it says is that which survives...survives, but doesn't say why it should be seen as 'the fittest') 'Breakdown of SM' presupposes the SM is a useful mechanism to counter EI. This hasn't been shown so can't yet be assumed to breakdown. It can be shown (non-absolute SM open to interpretation and deceit (Einsteins constant)) that quoting SM is no guarentee of anything by itself. As described above, a scientist may 'objectively' falsify a daughter but because of EI-spectacles, isn't even considering Mother. Daughters are by no means sacrosanct and many have been replaced or modified. Mother however remains unaffected. Ever see the film 'The Matrix' (the first one). Folk had all the freedom in the world but couldn't see outside the Matrix. EI says that EI'd scientists are in the Matrix.(forgive the analogy if a poor one. It's only meant as an illustration not a proof or insult or such like.)End of your para. Scientists can view the data very differently but if EI'd there are boundaries outside they can't thread. They are EI'd not to look at Mother. Only Daughter. Most of what you say is predictable by EI if you take the mother/daughter model of Evolution. A key sentence her is 'uniformity of thought' If daughters only are being re-fashioned you will get alot of unifirmity but still dissention. Mother marches on unaffected whilst her daughters change. It's still Mutation + Natural Selection I take it? If so that could be Mother. No one questions mother they just work on daughter (mechanisms whereby this could happen). Don't blast me on the exact science. I don't know exactly what constitutes Mothers and Daughters and there may be some Brothers and a Dad...but hopefully you get the gist. As I understand it, before Neo-Darwinism, people were all over the place just as you say my OP would predict.ND sought to unify them, harmonise them. ND made Mother. Now folk are free to obejctively investigate whatever they want - but it's only daughters their investigating. Mommy doesn't get looked at anymore.(Not for debate!!Don't jump on me for mentioning ID please. But ID is I believe the only core challenge there has been on Mother. And Mother don't like it one bit. Mother is protecting her chicks like a lioness given the non-scientific/objective virulence against ID. Is the virulence not an indication of fantatical loyalty to Mother? If science was really that objective, I would have thought folk would clamour to check it out. But then again it could be the ID is a load of tripe. Hard to tell in EI-land (should that prove to be the case)) My conclusion:
In the light of what you've said 'Hypotheses are generated to fit dissenting data into accepted model" illustrated by Punctuated Equilibrium and my Mother/Daughter analogy means I can't agree OP is falsified.(almost wish I could, this is costing me a bloody fortune in time and money!!)

Modulous,Your argument is interesting and raises issues (eg: holocaust). It is largely a philosopical one as your opening para says. Philosophy does come into it as does evidence but the central tenet of my argument is logical and I feel needs to be tackled there. Maybe I'm wrong in asking that it be done so but you make a philosophical statement like Which raises philosophical issues. The extent of my thread is not to investigate, discuss or even consider philosophical conseqences. That's be another days work. C'mon, lets try to get this to bed...or otherwise, logically.(Not that EI would be unimportant if shown. If "American Scientist Peer Review Journal Esq" published the headline "EI has been established as total" there would in fact be consequences. Or at least there should be. I wouldn't hold my breath though

[qs Kongstad]You can look at the fossil history of the horse, or the whale for an example. The fact that evolution has happened wouldn't need that much study in my oppinion.[/qs]If someone was to lay out 10 fossil skeletons beside each other, of animals purporting to belong to the horse chain or development plus the skeletons of 10 similar but 'unlinked'animals and said nothing about them, the un-EI'd observer would see skeletons of 20 random species of animals. They'd have no reason to think there'd be a link. Evolution says they're linked in a chain. And to understand the chain requires complex and specific understanding. If no EI exposure, then there's no reason to think they're linked at any level of education. If the answer isn't no, it's yes. I really fail to see how the thesis fails. Does mother/daughter analogy a few posts ago affect your arguement at all?

There have been some interesting responses thus far. But I still think this debate is a bit all over the place myself. The OP is just a starter to get debate going. If I'd made no steps away from OP then that'd be fine. But folk aren't talking about 3 thesis I put up. These are things for which EvC peer-determined evidence has been presented or are considered self-evident evidence. We should be debating the evidence (ie: there's no evidence as such in the OP - just a claim. Could folk discuss the theses 'cos it's these that count. And this connection I got is too torturously slow to be repsonding to everything.If I'm outta line then sorry but that's my gut feeling about it.Ta - Ian

Why someone doesn't believe Evolution despite exposure to EI is beyond the scope of this debate. I only hold that all evo's believe as a result of EI. Suffice to say the dissenters may be indoctrinated to something else - religion perhaps. One idea at time is all I can manage at the moment. Have a look at the theses in post 1 (bottom of page) and work with debating them. But I think your right about colleges and uni's

This is turning out to be a real debate within a debate hey!?Let me put it this way. Einstein obviously thought critcally to be able to do what he did. But he still,wrongly, put a constant in his General Theory, simply because he didn't like what his science was telling him. That is, his IDEOLOGY was telling him constant, unchanging universe and his science that it was anything but. He chose his ideology. That wasn't being objective. He let his ideology influence his science. That he got objective later and removed the constant, doesn't change the fact he was critical/non-objective at the same time, at that time.A scientist can be critical and non-objective at the same time. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.That's my last post on the subject.

Think you're mixing your metaphors. The Dark Ages are different times tha the time of God-at-the-centre of the Universe science. Newton "the father of science" et al lived in the latter. They could hardly be described as dark ages. On the contrary, it was the beginning of the Light Ages and the birth of the Scientific Method based science. The time when an assumption was made that, given (they believed) the Universe was the work of an ordered, logical Creator, it could therefore be investigated using SM (which presumes order and logic). Whilst there is much hatred of the idea of God-centred science there is too a lack of appreciation for the very thing which caused men and women then to start the very science folk now use in their condemnation. Shooting oneself in the foot perhapsBut that'd be a philosophical discussion This message has been edited by iano, 02-Aug-2005 11:49 AM

Hi SL. Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed. No more than the fact that a 17mm spanner that fits a correspondingly sized bolt of a space shuttle infers that a space shuttle is a common descendant of a motorcycle with a similar sized bolt. You could equally assume that a Creator used similar componants in a wide variety of the mechanical aspects of his creation. IOW, would an engineer (a Creator) go to to trouble of developing a totally different fixing method when an existing method (the 17mm bolt) works perfectly well. Not if he was efficient he wouldn't.(As a bit of light relief along the way, would anybody else like to suggest a way in which discoveries in Evolution science have any useful,practical applications. Or is it just a sterilised history lesson from which we draw nothing of worth other than (tentative) knowledge about how it all came about?)

Have a look at thesis 1. DS and work from there with the logic. It is a debate which revolves around logic. It the theses presented which need to be logically dismantled (evidence and philosophy play lesser roles). Examples of Santa are enjoyable but the terminology of the theses needs to be used to show, logically, they are false

Would you like to apply that mechanism to the theses in post 1. There are 4. I would suggest starting at 1 (although this has been apparently accepted on a peer basis and would be difficult to even start arguing against I think).Aside:Cow/human similarilty fits Evolution theory as well as it does Creationist theory. That Evo theory is considered a better one re: all the data, makes no difference to THIS data. Common descent or designer God - each can claim the glory. Thus, it's use as an example of practical benefits of Evo theory can equally be claimed by Creationist theory (shoddy though it may be in comparison)Any other clear practical benefits which arise from Evolution science ALONE? Not a debate, just citing one.

Have a read of the definition of Indoctrination (post 1). If a 12 year old believes in Evolution then they have been indoctinated into doing so. The truth or falsehood of the indoctrination affects the fact it is indoctrination not one whit Why someone doesn't believe Evolution is not the issue here. The title is All Evolution believing kids, teenagers, students, Ph.D-er, Scientists, Peer reviewist etc etc. That all that's being discussed A lot of your post is taken up with stuff that has nothing to do with the threads premise. If you want to debate what's being debated then by all means do so. I'm not being smart just that it takes alot of time to read and respond so there's too little to go off on side tracks - heartfelt and all as they may be.Read post 1,CF. There are 4 theses. These are logic statement by and large so need to be dealt with from that perspective

Maybe not in particular (forgive my lack of knowledge on the particulars) but presented all the same. And not without a reason. For someone to present PE there must have been data which didn't fit the previous (mother + daughter) model at the time, otherwise why would someone try and explain something that was perfectly explainable within the current framework. PE was presented because of a need. And if you look at my quote above you'll see that it fits Chiropteras mechanism of theories, to whit: if data doesn't fit the framework then you modify the daughter framework but leave mother framework alone.Some would say that this is "perfect science" But it also happens to fit EI perfectly too. A bit the same way cow/human commonality fits evo/creationist theory equally well. And so we go on...

I'll debate with you CF, within the framework of theses/logic/decency etc. I haven't though spent this amount of time trying to build a (to be shown) shoddy case to take your insult howevers. Neither do I deserve them.Last chance. Debate the arguments using the tools above ...or move on somewhere else. Personally, I'd prefer you debate...

I never implied that this was a primarily evidential debate. I did mention earlier in the proceedings that it wasn't going to take that tack. Logic WK, logic. Sure evidence is required along the way to bolster the logic, but it's not the prime argument.Evidence? Okay...Anybody up to x age/education, who has not got sufficient educational tools to evaluate the data for themselves can only believe Evolution through a process of indoctrination. There is no other way for them to believe it. The logical conclusion is that EI exists and operates. Now the debate moves to try and figure where this EI can switch to self-decision.By all means take part. Have a look at 4 theses in post 1 and pick the level at which you feel your debate can commence. Some of your peers here seem to think the level required to disprove (and hence prove) evolution lies at professor/very experienced in the field level. Maybe you agree, maybe not. That's debate for ya!!