All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

OK, here is some evidence of indoctrination.Evolutionists on these boards have made the claim that creationists reject evolution, not because of the facts, and some have claimed they do so because they want political power over people, or are insecure, stupid, whatever.There are, to my knowledge, no peer-reviewed studies indicating that these claims have any merit, but evolutionists here make them nonetheless.Here is the indoctrination part.Did any evolutionist here ever demand peer-reviewed papers to back up these claims?I think not.But these same folks demand that a claim, that perhaps evolutionists could be indoctrinated by pro-evolution messages prior to becoming scientists could have an affect, must be backed up by peer-review studies.They don't seem to be aware of the hypocrisy there, and the fact they don't seem to be aware of the inconsistency in thier beliefs, namely they believe something about creationists not backed up by studies but demand studies for anyone believing something about evolutionists before considering it, well, the inconsistency of evolutionists, at least here on this board, is the kind of thing one would expect of a group indoctrinated in their basic principles instead of truly educated in them.

Charles, the feeling is mutual. So if you would please avoid fouling up any threads I am on, by doing what you did here, I would appreciate it.You asked for the guy's name, and I gave it to you. I did my part.Somehow though, I doubt you will stay away. But if it helps, I am not interested in your responses either.

Vaccinations do not require belief in ToE for them to work, nor for someone to have an understanding of them.It is well-known that microbes affect people as well as animals.Can you show why someone Intelligent Design, for example, is a faulty understanding via the questions you posed?It is not necessary to accept ToE to accept the basic similarities that affect the study of bacteria, germs, viruses, etc,...

I am not sure what you refer to here. The Dark Ages were not a time of monolithic beliefs. That is an incorrect suggestion often erroneously passed on.There is a reason things like Inquisitions sprang up. They sprang up, not just to deal with a few agnostic-type heretics or Jews or others of non-Christian religions, but due to certain sects of Christianity being so numerous and populous that they threatened the influence of the Pope since these Christians rejected much of Catholicism.

Indoctrination has characteristics, and groups that are indoctrinated exhibit certain characteristics, all of which I have noted among evolutionists.I don't have time, but maybe someone famaliar with psychological assessments of cults and such could ID these characteristics and see if a similar pattern emerges with evolutionism.Michael Ruse, himself an evolutionist, has recognized a pseudo-religious side to evolutionism and has written about it, and I am sure others have.One thing you see with indoctrination is that the group derides the motives of their critics. They typically will not accept that critics are genuinely in disagreement based on an honest review, from their perspective, of what they know as true.No, groups that indoctrinate people make their critics out to be evil in one form or another, not sincere.That's what evolutionists do, as evidenced on this thread.Another trait of indoctrination is to use propaganda techniques, such as the false use of imagery, and we've discussed that some on other threads, and is indicative of evolutionism.Another form of propaganda is the use of false logic. For example, the term evolution can mean any change basically, micro-evolution, or ToE which is universal common descent. Let's call the first A, and ToE, B."A" is an important concept, valuable in many fields, and is not contested."A" is observed.Evolutionists then claim because "evolution" equals A, B must be true as well.On the surface it seems logical, and that's why evolutionists will spend pages upon pages explaining how their theory is so important to medicine or whatever.But this is a trick because the word "evolution" has 2 meanings. Just because meaning A is accepted and important does not mean meaning B is the same, just because the same English word describes both. This is a form of propaganda and subtle brainwashing, and once again goes to the group trying to demonize critics as the enemy.The implication in this false claim is that critics reject "evolution", the A meaning, when that's a lie. The critics do not reject A, but the other meaning of the same term, universal common descent as virtual fact.These sorts of things are dominant thought processes within the thought of evolutionists, and are not scientific, nor even logical, at all, and are indicative of EI, as the OP discusses.

As far as the "naturalistic religion" comment, that's basically true, but not necessarily the motive. Evolutionism is quasi-religious, imo.On the "sin" comment, I have not heard that in scientific debates.Have you?That would probably fall under the indoctrination technique, but would have to be a prevalent message of critics of evolution to qualify.