All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

quote:

---

Given that science is complex, how could anyone be sure evolution was true without achieving the necessary degree of education and experience which would allow them to evaluate for themselves the complex evidence involved? If the answer is they couldn't then...

---

Depends on what you mean by "evolution". Is the life observed today the result of a multitude of years of lifeforms multiplying and changing to become what see today. Then the evidence thrugh the fossil record is very easy to comprehend. 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.If you mean the specific complex ways that this evolution has happened, then you are right that this would take a lot more education and trials to be sure of the specifics.

quote:

---

How do people who become evolution-believing scientists know that a belief which arose in them when they were uninformed, isn't the main reason why they believe today? In other words, could indoctrination, prior to them becoming scientists, ensure that every piece of evidence, every hypothesis, every conclusion they make, is pre-filtered through evolution-tinted spectacles?

---

Because they would examine the evidence themselves. When they are wearing the evolution tinted spectacles, everything that doesn't fit with the theory will stand out, and need extra explaining. This might mean they will expand on the theory, or it will mean that some parts will have to be trashed.You see this is how one would work. Assuming the theory one would expect to make certain observations. If the evidence doesn't fit these observations, then you've got some 'splaining to do!What creationists often claim is that the evidence supports both the Evolutionary explanation, and the creatinist explanation, and only the scientists bias stop them from assuming the creationist explanation.This of course fails on the simple fact that there are no creationist scinetific theories. The creationist theories are post hoc theories, only claiming that what ever evidence you find it will be evidence for creation.So to sum up. the scientist assumes his hypothesis or the theory when looking at the evidence, to find out if it fits the evidence. A basic requirement when making any argument is that you are aware of all the assumptions you make, and this is very much so in science. So even if your assumptions are formed by indoctrination, all scientists work towards the goal of making every assumption explicit and test each one.

quote:

---

If the answer to the above is a resounding NO! then how does a scientist know, or even more difficultly, demonstrate this?

---

the answer is not NO, so I guess the rest of your thesis fails./soren

quote:

---

sidelined writes:

​

Why is streptococcus Pneumonia resistant to penicillin?Indeed,it has developed resistance to several antibiotics.Can you explain how this is accomplished?

"microevolution not macroevolution?" he said tentitively

---

Whatever your definitions are both micro and macroevolution is a part of TOE, so whichever it was it would still be an example of evolution./Soren

quote:

---

Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed

---

But this is no different than any other science. the fact that a stone drops to the ground every time you drop it does not infer the existence of gravity, except if the existence of gravity is assumed.Those who are indoctrinated by the theory of gravity, do not examine the theory that it is invisible angels that push the stone to the earth.Would it be fair to say that you think that scientists are indoctrinated against considering theological explanations? EG when they look at the fossil evidence they see it as conformation of their assumption of evolution, and not as confirmation of the Lord, or the "unspecified Intelligent Designer" saw fit to develop organisms stepwise?If this is indeed your stance, then you cannot say that there is no support for ToE, but only that alternative theories are not given fair hearing. Even though one assumes a particular theory, reality must fit in with the theory, or else it must be amended.Think of Newtons physics. They work very well in most day to day situations (barring all the modern situations where relativistic effect are noticable - GPS etc).Now if scientists where NI, Newtonian Indoctrinated, they would reject reletavistic theories. But they would still be able to test Newtonian Physics. They would notice that in most circumstances their calculations would be dead on - simply because Newtonian physics are indeed a very good approximation.Now someone who broke free of NI would perhaps discover Relatavistic physics, and could show that alle the predictions and calculations of Newtonian physics still apply for Relativistic, but Relativistic would also predict for instance why clocks in orbit differ from clocks on earth.So even assuming indoctrination, the scientists are still able to test their theories. So your claim that if there were such an indoctrination, then we could say nothing of the truth status of ToE is wrong.even though we can never know if our theories are true in any science. Indoctrination does not stop us from discovering false assumptions./Soren

quote:

---

quote:

---

Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed

---

But this is no different than any other science. the fact that a stone drops to the ground every time you drop it does not infer the existence of gravity, except if the existence of gravity is assumed.

Neither of these infer anything, they imply them.

---

Please forgive my lack in english skills, English being my second language, but I think we are in agreement.My point is simply the same as, I think it was Hume, who said that causality is always an assumption, and can never be directly observed. This goes for the rock dropping, as well as for evolution.The way to test our theories is to assume the theory correct and try our hardest to find things that makes no sense given our assumptions. In the case of gravity this could mean a rock hovering in the air when you drop it, and in the case of ToE it could be a fully formed Homo sapiens found in the precambrian strata./soren

When the premis for your thesis fails, the thesis fails - or rather you can no longer support your thesis. So if there is no indoctrination, or if the indoctrination does not make it impossible for the indoctrinated to evaluate the indoctrinated assumptions via the scientific method, you have no thesis. Logically or practically./soren

quote:

---

1. Up until the time they become qualified to Ph.D level or have wide experience in a scientific field, everybody who believes in evolution, can only do so as a result of EI. This due to the fact that any qualification they may have up to that point is rejected as insufficient to permit them to comment on the invalidity (and thus too, validity) of evolution. This established by the following: msg 25 (wj), msg 26 (cavediver), msg 27 (charles knight), msg 48 (Sidelined). If anybody in still inclined to believe that EI doesn't occur throughout childhood, teenage and school years and into college then I would point them to the fact that 'everybody' believes the earth rotates around the Sun through a process of indoctrination (as defined above) and by the same mechanism as I propose for EI.

---

OK. I'll assume you need a Ph.D or a wide experience in the field base your trust in evolution on anything but EI. Now I would also claim that anyone with firsthand knowledge of the evidence might on their own obtain trust in evolution - for instance looking at the fossil evidence. If this does not add up to wide experience in your terminology then my claim would be at odds with the assumption, and thus either my claim or your thesis must be amended.Now I would claim that knowledge of ToE and access to fossil evidence like the multitude of transitional forms between humans and the other apes in itself would be enough to instill trust in a person, even without EI. And thus in my oppinion your thesis fails.

quote:

---

2. The only field a scientist may claim that no EI has influenced his science is the field where he is trained in or has wide experience of. A vast majority of paelantologists for example, have not the training or experience to evaluate the genetic argument of evolution for themselves. They may accept conclusions in published peer-reviewed papers but in doing so are placing faith in those who publish and criticise those papers. Faith however is not science. This thesis is self-supporting (although it is concurred with by msg 48 (Sidelined) and possibly others) msg 61,62,70,72 (CK) msg 113 (Rahvin)

---

Your claim here is stronger than i thesis 1. Now you talk about EI influence on science. I would make your claim stronger. since all biology is ultimately founded in ToE, no subject pertaining wholely or in part on biology can today be without influence from ToE, and no scientist can be without influence from ToE, or EI as you name it.notice though that this has no bearing on the question of the scientists ability to evaluate the science in her field. Even though one is influenced by something, it does not in any way follow that your ability to be objective is in any way harmed.

quote:

---

3. Assuming thesis 2 can be established then the following can be added. The vast majority of scientists have expertise in a single field or a group of closely related fields (witnessed by educational qualifications etc). This means that they are surrounded by claims from numerous other fields, who say they've evidence that Evolution is true. A particular scientist has no way of evaluating these claims, except perhaps by exercising faith. The scientist is thus being EI'd, according to the definition of indoctrination presented above.

---

This is simply false. I would agree she could not evaluate all claims - us humans usually only live about a hundred years, so we simply do not have the time to evaluate first hand all claims. But every single claim could in theory be evaluated by the scientist. Either by repeating the measurements (doing the observations) of the original, or by secondary means. Peer review is one method that removes faith from the equation. It is not hard to believe that one person would make a mistake and make faulty science. Dembski, Behe or Wells are excellent examples of this. But through the method of peer review many scientists are involved in publication - boosting the credibility.So even though faith in peer review might still be only faith - this faith is grounded in something else than EI, it is grounded in the scientific method as examplified by peer review.

quote:

---

4. Scientific Method (SM) is an non-specific entity. Whilst it can broadly understood to provide a mechanism under which science is carried out, evaluated and tends toward self-correction, it cannot INFER UPON ITSELF the ability to defend,'in toto' and at all times against: error,deceit,favoritism, etc., ...or EI. The reasons I say this are (for now) twofold.

​

a) SM is not absolute. It has changed over time and will continue to change overtime. Things that are not absolute and consistant cannot be said to act in an absolute, consistant fashion.

​

b) There are many cases where SM has not been applied and personal ideology was allowed to affect the science. One example is sufficient to make the point (Einsteins Cosmological constant: a case of now you see it, now you don't). SM may ensure correction soon... or it may not.

---

Well I'll agree on that one - you can never fully protect yourself against deceit and errors. The trivial conclusion from this is that you cannot in any way know for sure that anything is real. All your experiences might be your own delusions.But for your conclusion - lets se of your definition of indoctrination:

quote:

---

1. to teach (a person or group) to accept a view, ideology etc uncritically, esp by systematic repetition.

---

Since the SM in any way teaches to critically review every assumption, any definition of the SM that holds this as minimum will constantly work against any EI there might or might not be.This would invalidate your point - since critical review - will counteract any EI - not in all cases of course - but just one will suffice. Hence scientist can base their science in fact - even though they might be EI'ed. I think it is abundally clear that even from the existence of EI does not logically follow that scientists cannot critically evaluate the indoctrinated assumptions - hence your point is moot.We are of course left with problem that we cannot be sure in each instance if a conclusion is reached by a process of critical thinking, or by indoctrination. But this is the basic premis of all science, indeed of all experiences in life./Soren

quote:

---

crashfrog writes:

​

Because it's ludicrous to assert that you can "indoctrinate" someone in the truth. When it's true, it's called "education."

​

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

---

OK If you read the definition of indoctrination supplied in the OP, you will see that it hinges on the fact that the acceptance must be uncritical. Now I am sure that there are many examples of evolution being in taught that way - but I also know for a fact that most, or all science writing promotes a critical view of the conclusions presented. Furthermore a lot of popular science is presented in a way encopuraging critical thinking. finally there are plenty of textbooks used in all types of education that encourages critical thinking, also with regards to evolution. I would claim that science curricula as a rule teach critical thinking./Soren

quote:

---

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.

---

They can simply have been taught about evolution and be taught think critically, or indeed just been taught about evolution, without the teaching instilling uncritical acceptance. Hence you have not supplied any arguments for the necessity of EI./Soren

Or the 13 year old has only been taught that man came from ape, he needn't have been indoctrinated!/SorenThis message has been edited by kongstad, 02-Aug-2005 03:57 PM

iano you seem to be ignoring the definition of indoctrination you yourself supplied. If a 13 year old has been exposed to creationism in different guises, aand to different accounts of evolution, which I can hardly believe you would deny, then how has he been indoctrinated into evolution?Indoctrination by your own definition is a process to make a person uncritically believe a given idea. So if a person has been exposed to different views on a subject, the onus must be on YOU to show he has been indoctrinated./Soren

Hi ianoWhat is your source for the qoute bu sir Arthur Keith? some creationist sites claim it is from the foreword of the centennial edition of Darwins great book, but that was 4 years after Sir Keith died. Sir Keith did write a foreword, but that was in 1928, and this foreword did not contain the quote.Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"So where did Sir Keith say that?/Soren