All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

From the Encylopedia of astrobiology, astronomy and spaceflight"A parameter introduced in 1917 by Einstein into the description of the universe in terms of the general theory of relativity, in order to ENSURE static (i.e. not expanding or contracting) cosmological models. At that time, the expansion of the universe was still unknown. Einstein later described his invention of the cosmological constant as HIS GREATEST BLUNDER. Einstein's cosmological constant was later interpreted....."Google "Einstein's Cosmological Constant" "blunder" for those who think I may be quote mining. there's too many listing to count. The key words are 'ensure' (which means not-objective) and 'greatest blunder' which means he didn't think himself he was just trying to cover the angles

I'm afraid that's the end of discussion between you and me on this one CF...

You may not like the hypothesis WK but the above doesn't absolve you from dealing with it. You've a simple option. Tell me one other way by which folk who have yet to aquire the education and experience necessary to evaluate the suitability of Evolution as an explaination of how it all came to be, believe Evolution.A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "Yes he did - I saw it on tv last week". This data needs explaining - the kid hasn't got a Ph.D. EI is the hypothesis which best explain the data - so gets accepted until shown otherwise.

Good illustration but not at all the only option. There are a couple of other logical (and practical) options. According to the EI, it may cause some folk to say to themselves "it doesn't fit - but it MUST fit. We KNOW Mother Theory MUST the correct general path (for reasons perhaps as that quoted by Sir Keith below). We're operating at Daughter level so can we think of a Daughter theory that will make it fit in the family and call it "Directed Panmongery" A tad flippant but this kind of thing has gone on in the past. As I understand it, "Hopeful monster" and "Directed panspermia" theories didn't get much of a look in, but they were still suggested - in the latter case, by respected scientists, as a way around problems raised by the data ( of which more later)Assuming abiogensis (which comes under the umbrella of Evolution) is still the mechanism whereby life is supposed to have originated, then a 'Rust Theory' may involve spending years experimenting to spontaneously manufacture rust out of bits of stainless steel scrap lying around the yard. "We may not be getting anywhere but we are working on it".My last quip may be incorrect. Maybe scientists have managed to spontaneously and undirectedly manufacture a self-replicating piece of RNA (which I believe is the most base thing you need to start mutation on which survival of the fittest can operate - as opposed to speculate as to how bits of amino acids and proteins MAY somehow have got it together. I haven't seen the headline myself so I'm not sure.Which raises the point. Evolution is a theory. That means it's tentative. Only when it can account for all the data/observations will it be fact. This may be 'standard science' or it may be a way of getting around the problem of not being able to make the data fit the theory, ie: sweeping problems under the theoretical carpet as it were.Evolution would support the former view, EI the latter.Back to the theses...post 1

What took you PY? We could do with your calming influence here. Tell me this, what's the 'AM' graphic which accompanies the title of a thread in the Is It Science main page. It wouldn't stand for "Anger Meter" by any chance? There's been a bit of it about allright (though I'm as pure as snow on that one... as you might well guess!)Read an post responding to Wounded King a few post ago. Practical example of which you have at your disposal (the single boy in your sons class). Next time your dropping off your son, ask him why he believes it. If he can't hold up a Ph.D (this is others people criteria note, me, I don't hold that a Ph.D is a valid qualification against EI...but we ain't got that far) then he's been EI'd into believing it by the MI listed on post 1 this thread.There are no other options for the boys stance. EI existsThat others don't believe because they, for example, have been indoctrinated by something else is irrelevant. The title of this thread has only to do with those who DO believe the theory, not those who don't.As a general comment to all: Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, made the point that an "Argument From Incredulity", is not an argument at all. I'm inclined to agree. That someone "cannot believe" or "finds it hard to imagine" or "do you really expect me to accept that"....is neither here nor there. Nor is it particularily scientific...Theses 1,2,3,4....anybody?This message has been edited by iano, 02-Aug-2005 03:18 PM

On what basis does someone who can't evaluate evolution to be true for themselves state that they believe it? Calculus of confidence in what? What they've been told by others who they trust?. Faith? In what? What they've been told by others whom they trust. Wriggle around all you want WK. You will not escape the conclusion. EI.

---

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

Just read Sidelines message and was reminded me of his method of presenting a point so I'll temper my response...Is that the extent of your arguement WK?

For the same reason that the 40m long, 17mm bolt from the space shuttle, when used instead of a 30mm long 17mm bolt in a motorcycle engine, would protrude too far into the crankcase of the motorcycle engine and cause the engine to lock up...Not the same mechanism, it's similar mechanisms, adapted by a theoretical Creator to suit the function he was after (much like Evolution says it is) Like, I'm sure a mouses lungs work something like mine but I wouldn't like to embark on a serious session of love-making using mouse-sized lungs...He said lighting another cigarette...

There is no other mechanism by which he can evaluate the complex science that would be involved with making a non-indocrinated decision. (Not that I say even understanding complex science protects against EI but thats for later. We're just trying to establish EI for kids.) The above may clarify. There is no other mechanism. EI by default. Unless a better hypothesis can be presented into which the data fits. I have a hypothesis, I have data in the form of millions of kids who believe evolution which fit the hypothesis. Unless someone else has a hypothesis which better fits the data then the hypothesis stands.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-02-2005 10:25 AM

Critical. I've had my fair share of that word over the last couple of days. I agree that EI doesn't just repeat mantra like "Evo is true, Evo is true, Evo is true" but the critical your're talking about ain't enough, in fact can easily reinforce EIFolk here had a bit of a ding-dong about what evidence constitutes a refution of evolution (or even strands of it). They demanded that published papers by Professors with recognised standing in the field be produced. As one put it "grad and post grads don't count" Why is that?I think it's because the science at the heart of establishing any strand of evolution is so complex that only a Professor or similar could hope to critically evaluate in a manner to demonstrate refutation/confirmation. A 13 year old kid might enjoy Dinosaur vs Neandrathal Man cartoons, a grad student may grasp the elements of biochemistry but it takes a Professor (or so the argument indicates) to say something definitive about the evidence. And he/she would want to be demonstrabley expert in the relevant field to comment as well. A Ph.D dentist better not start commenting on body symmetry etc..That's the meaning of Critical here. Reading a science mag which adds some of the science and thus raise the stakes above cartoon level is no more use in deciding whether evolution is true than a cartoon. Climbing up the rungs of a ladder to get over a wall doesn't mean you can see over the wall. You have to be at the top to know what's on the other side. Steps along the way may be useful for something but until you get to the top, every basis for believing evolution is EI. Some will point out, correctly, that horizons are being expanded along the way. Whilst that is the case, until someone reaches the position of decide objectively and critically for themselves, EI can only the basis on which they believe. In other words:I cannot demonstrate critically and objectively why I believe + yet I believe nonetheless = EI

As I said somewhere else, evidence of personal testimony carries limited weight. And your personal circumstances wouldn't represent the majority. Millions of folk out there believe in Evolution and they've never gone to Science College. By what mechanism do you reckon they believe it?Take a look at a recent U.S.A. Poll:"Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do not).Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree."(http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581)Assuming this was a reputable poll it says that half the American population believe in Evolution. Excluding say 20 million who are too young to watch t.v. that means about 115 million people (most of whom have no scientific education above basic schooling) believe in Evolution. They have no means to evaluate critically/objectively. We have some data (113 million of them) we have a hypothesis about how it happens MI. If you disagree with EI, what alternative do you suggest to it? Lets establish what happens pre-science college. If you accept, widespread and successful EI pre-science college (the poll has given people a choice one way or the other and 113 million of them have definitely chosen for evolution) then we can move on. Otherwise I could be dragged back to "EI isn't shown to exist at all. (Not by you, your too nice -but the lurkers are out there just waitin' to pounce )p.s.
Remember that America a country with a widespread Christian belief system with active promotion of Creationism. In Europe, a Papal acceptance that Evolution is worthy of study, means that Evolution faces less resistance in this largely Roman Catholic continent than it does in America. Like I say, lets establish EI as widespread outside college before looking at inside college.Your suggested experiment PY:Take a single microbe.put it in a petri dish.Sequence the DNA from several of its descendents.The TOE predicts that the DNA should be slightly different in the descendents than it was in the original. (iano - this fits Creation theory too - the microbe is still a microbe of the same species as before. Microevolution at work and not a problem for Creationists)If evolution is false then the DNA will be identical to that of the parent. ie. all microbes have same DNA.(iano: if Creation theory is false the same would happen)If evolution is true then they will have slightly different DNA (iano: as Creation theory too predicts)If this is still not enough then wait for a nice big population to grow then add a mild antibiotic to the dish.Again evolution predicts that some of the microbes might develop a resistance to the antibiotic. Do some survive? (Micro evolution - adaptation within the species and not a problem to Creation theory) You've shown how yourself. You've see the data in the light of evolution and haven't considered other possibilities. You are in college at this stage, if EI (remember 113 million) then college is causing EI to increase in you. Evolution may be right, but your not being given the opportunity to self-evaluate. You're seeing it Evo-tinted light

Interesting point:A 3rd year science students argument is not valid proof against evolution( no papers published, no practical experience, etc), yet the same level of education (no papers published, no experience, etc) is considered sufficient basis for him to say his belief in evolution is a result of scientific evaluation of the evidence and not EI. Which is to be?

Folks, Just noted in Sidelines post that 300 is about the limit for posts to a thread. At the rate we're going we'll be there in no time. No wonder, this has gone berserk! A few days ago I was discussing with someone on the basis "that EI happens to some extent but science can counter the effects". Today I'm debating with someone else who doesn't accept EI occurs at all. Either it does or it doesn't occur at all - not both!I unable to continually revisit the same points as they are freshly made. I thought putting thesis up might focus things and allow things to move stepwise. But it hasn't. The fault for this must lie at the way I've structured things. Apologies for that. Given these problems I've little option but to retire. Many thanks for all the time spent. Some of the argument has been a wonder to behold. Not least, the multitude of ways in which a particular standpoint can be viewed: logical, evidential,philosophically, emotionally, argumentitively etc. If I've learned one thing it's to narrow down the range of possible discussion. Keep them floodgates well battened down!RegardsIan

Aah...a logic statement...but one which assumes all here understand the procedures involved with logic statements. It would be helpful (and ensure honesty on all sides) if you could put the beginning and end words of the text which you decided forms p1,p2,c1 etc. Maybe deal with the first quote you mention (above) and remember, in that case we're talking about the 110 million or so Americans who have no formal scientific training yet believe Evolution. I question your logic on the basis that p1 has an 'if' statement which doesn't appear nor is implied in the text "I cannot demonstrate...." I presume logic statements aren't supposed to put the cart before the horse...For what it's worth:"I cannot demonstrate..." is a statement which, in itself, says nothing about EI. There's no 'if' in it either.
"I believe nonetheless..."is a statement which, in itself says nothing specific about EI (they may,logically, have spent a year in a time machine and seen evolution for themselves and thereby believe). There is no 'because' there.Conclusion: There is no evidence that a time machine has ever been. There is evidence that people can be indoctrinated however (Nazism and Creationism are two examples which most here would have little trouble accepting). For want of another explanation (and science presumes an explantion is possible for observable phenomenon) EI best-fits the thesis and according to the norms of theses as I understand them (ie: unless a better fit comes along) then EI it is. The data is 110 million who believe for no objective reason.P.S.
For all those who are inclined to post two lines, at the end of which the shout: "EVIDENCE?!!!!!" I would request that in doing so, they include with their request, a link to a respected published paper showing the experiment which provides evidence for the hypothesis that life arose out of non-life. An undirected,blind-chance style experiment which resulted in one strand of self-replicating RNA will do fine. Or are we relying on the best-fit scenario here too?This message has been edited by iano, 03-Aug-2005 11:12 AM

The debate as such is over - as a previous post stated. I repeat for all those who may think it's not and continue. If I do reply it's just to bits that particularily interest. The topic became too wide to handle and with a limit of 300 posts we were never going to get to any conclusion. I didn't know that at the outset. Sorry.An example of "too-wide-ranging" is your post. I have had to repeat on more than one occasion, that philsopocal and other conseqences about science and whether other science may be influenced by ?I is not the issue here. The issue under debate was the issue under debate not every consequenctial issue that may arise from itSorry...but I do have a day job