All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

Agreed. That life has changed throughout a long period of time, starting with invertebrates and going through fish/amphibians/reptiles/mammals is as much of a fact as we can have. Agreed, and vice versa, can anyone be totally sure they have falsified evolution without achieving the education/experience? Possibly but not necessarily, and I'd be surprised if this was true in 100% of cases. Generally speaking we learn a little about evolution and accept it, then when further study is started, it raises some questions that need a lot more study to answer. This is true for everything. No human can claim they are objective. However, when the theory was first postulated scientists wore Creation-tinted spectacles and were convinced to go the other way. This seems to me to indicate the evidence for evolution was stronger than evidence for any other idea (eg creation/teleology) non-sequitur. If some indoctrinations have taken place it does not mean that the doctrine that is being indoctrinated is not based in fact. Alas - this is because there hasn't been an alternative scientific argument formulated. The problem, there is a confusion between ToE and Evolution. This indoctrination you speak of generally revolves around Evolution...that life has changed on earth over time. There is usually some reference to common descent and descent with modification.To date, nobody has proposed an explanation for the fossil record which says anything other that 'Life on earth has changed over time' without invoking either a miracle or some untested hypothesis. So we start with the observation that life has changed over time.To explain how life has changed over time we refer to the Theory of Evolution, starting with its first formulation by Darwin which involves descent with modification, heredity and natural selection. Nothing has come along to falsify this theory, though there are some questions which do not have full or satisfying answers.I have been writing this response whilst at work, and haven't had time to keep an eye on how the thread has developed, if I've covered ground already discussed, accept my apologies.

Jeez! Tell me about it!

That doesn't make sense. If indoctrination has happened, then we should treat the claims of the indoctrinated as suspect. However, even if you can not be sure of the truth of something does not mean that something isn't true. However, my point was that this indoctrination would need a very high success rate and be so effective as to last over a century. It's possible, but not particularly plausible. Science doesn't rely on objectivity. It accepts that there is an objective reality and attempts to uncover the mysteries of that reality from a subjective point of view. In part, but that is the nature of science. However, much of what Darwin presented remains solid. Most of his ideas that have been overturned were hypothesis that have been falsified (such as gemmules, Lamarckism as a means of inheritance etc).I'll remind you that Einstein didn't have a whole load of evidence for relativity, a lot of it was just mathematics...that's why they performed those tests. That would need support from yourself to hold up in debate. The reason why his ideas were taken was because they answered questions that other ideas (eg creationism) couldn't. Remember, Alfred Russel Wallace independently came to the same conclusions...the wind was blowing in that direction, Darwin and Wallace were just the first to get to the shore. A lot of biologists accepted it very quickly because they were already beginning to think in that direction, Darwin just filled it all out and spoke of natural selection. I could say that about the Holocaust, or any history. Think about holocaust deniers. They claim the same thing, that historians have been subjected to Holocaust indoctrination, they only believe it happened because they view the evidence with Holocaust tinted spectacles (and what horrid spectacles they are). This HI demonstrates once and for all that the science surrounding the gas chambers et al is not objective. Thus Holocaustism is dead in the water.No.I agree that seeing something in a certain light will colour our expectations, and can cause us to be blind to truths that would otherwise be staring at us in the face. This always happens, it has delayed scientific advancement in plenty of areas. Relativity, quantum mechanics, these things emerged from indoctrination of the absoluteness of space and time. Had we not been so indoctrinated perhaps we would have developed atomic energy during the French Revolution, heh, who can say?The wonder of science is that whilst most of it's adherance are working within the paradigm of the current consensus, anyone can challenge it. It might take a long time, it might be immediate, but the wonders of falsifiability mean it is possible. Creationists have been attacking and probing for any weakness in the theory. Heck, whenever a paper comes out other scientists do likewise. Together, they help balance the bias as much as they can.So here is the big question. Should we abandon a theory just because most people believe it to be the best theory and they teach people that? Should we abandon it because of fears that we can no longer be objective about something which has come to be accepted by so many?Perhaps, instead, we should just try our best to make sure the work is good work, is good science and our assumptions are clear. If our assumptions are shown to be false, we should rethink the theory and either modify it to account for our new data or we should develop a whole new theory. Enjoy it, Cheers!

Welcome to philosophy. This statement is not just limited to Evolution. We cannot know the truth of anything. Something we now take for granted as true can be shown to be false in an instant. That is why science revolves around falsifiability not truafiability. This is why science stresses the tentatitivity of its conclusions. That is why, if you study science past high school it gets drilled into your head to state your assumptions, your error margins and so on. The amount of times I started a day by writing "Assuming g is 9.8 and constant..." beggers belief. All my work could have been falsified by demonstrating that g is either not 9.8 or it is not constant or both. I certainly don't. I think it is a method of uncovering the mysteries of the objective reality and doing so, knowing that the point of view that attempts to uncover this is subjective. Thus, we can never prove or know the truth. Only come to tentative conclusions. Nor am I trying to make it one. Indeed, I have started by assuming EI is true, and then trying to see if that makes it any different from anything else we tentatively conclude to be true, and what we can do about it if it is true. So far you have not shown how EI is any different from my purported Holocaust Indoctrination. I was told from a very young age, from films and school that there was a Holocaust. If I became a historical scientist, I would view all the evidence from that period with Holocaust tinted spectacles. Therefore the Holocaust is, as you say, 'dead in the water'. Indeed, even if it were total that would demonstrate nothing. I ask you again, should we abandon a theory because everybody believes it to be the strongest theory and so teaches everybody that it is the strongest theory? Should we never teach people theories? Should we just let each generation attempt to discover the theory for themselves? Would this not be detrimental to science? Indeed, if we did this, then we would probably never uncover theories, such work is often done by visionaries who stand on the shoulders of giants. Indeed, if I have neglected to discuss with you Evolutionary Indoctrination my apologies. Instead of asking for evidence of this indoctrination, or for the mechanism of it I am merely questioning.Q: Do we have any evidence of this level of indoctrination lasting for this long before?
A: Yes, when all science included God in the hypothesis. All things were looked through with God-tinted spectacles.Q: Were non-God tinted hypothesis and theories able to break free of this indoctrination?
A: Yes, once the threat of unpleasant death was removed the indoctrination quickly began to crumble.Conclusion: Indoctrination does not necessarily halt science. Any indoctrination that can halt science would have to be as complete as the religious indoctrination of the Dark Ages (ie death threats to those that do not conform to the indoctrination procedure).Observation: Those who do not accept evolution are free to express this opinion, and do so, they are even alowed to do science if they want. There are thousands of these people.Secondary Conclusion: The evolution indoctrination, should it exist, is much less than that of the Dark Ages, therefore it does not stand as an inpenetrable obstruction for truth.And I agreed with you, that if evolution is not true, then it will take longer to learn that had we not been 'indoctrinated'. However, maybe not. Maybe this indoctrination helps us learn more about the theory, so that more tests of its validity are run, and more is learned about it. If evolution is true, this is a wonderful side effect, if it is false, it means that the data will eventually speak for itself.

I also addressed your concerns with a logical structure of sorts. Is EI more or less total than the Dark Ages religious indoctrination? Saying that it is more total is an extraordinary claim, saying that it is less is conceding that if evolution is not true, then there is enough freedom of thought allowed by the indoctrination to allow for falsification and dissent.Given that there is clear evidence of dissent, I put it to you that the indoctrination is less that Dark Ages. Given that we emerged from these Dark Ages with the sciences we now have, EI, if it exists, is not a big problem...plenty of people do not have evolutionary tinted spectacles and are free to gather and present data that runs contrary to the evolutionary model.

Indeed, I never suggested it was. What I refer to is that, whilst definitions of God varied, and wars, crusades and Inquisitions were fought over such definitions...childeren were taught that God was real, they went to church, they feared God. Everything they did was in some way connected to God. There was the same kind of indoctrination that iano seems to indicate that is happening with evolution. Indeed, and the Holy Roman Empire in the late 12th and early 13th Centuries is an excellent example of this. Philip of Swabia and the papists like Otto causing no end of consternation. However, they both viewed the conflict with God-tinted spectacles.

Never stated otherwise. Indeed , and when was this? Newton was 17th Century, but let us not forget Copernicus and Galileo, 15 and 16th Century. That is to say, right on the edge of the Dark Ages, the Rennaissance. These people emerged from such a time with ideas almost unthinkable by the people before them. Still heavily coloured by their God-specs and heavily influenced by the threat of the Spanish Inquisition. By the time Newton came along, even those tinted spectacles were beginning to clear...indeed it was the start of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason.So even a millenium of indoctrination is not impervious...evolution has no such depth, it has no 'police' burning 'heretical' works, torturing creationists etc. So, if da Vinci, Galilieo, Brahe and Copernicus can emerge from such indoctrination, then either evolution indoctrination is stronger and a massive problem we should try and solve, or its not that big of a problem, and if evolution is not true, it might set science back a few decades.

Why? Science says that abiogenesis hasn't been ruled out as a possibility, developments are being made in the field all the time. Creationists and IDers make the absolute claim that it simply isn't possible, and make some vague references to statistics that prove that one way of abiogenesis happening is impossible, but fail to cover all possible scenarios.Evidence is required for absolute statements.Uh-oh, this is in danger of being 'Origins of Life' so I'll stop there But you still haven't addressed the big question. How does this differ from anything else? No one single person becomes an expert in all fields and so takes much on the faith of the authorities that are experts. I am not a historian, have I been Holocaust indoctrinated? Have I been 1812 indoctrinated? I HAVE NEVER DIRECTLY STUDIED THE EVIDENCE AND YET I BELIEVE! We also indoctrinate our kids into believing that there is poverty in Africa. How many of these kids actually calculate the GDP of these countries, estimate economic distributions of despotic regimes? Very few, thus they are being indoctrinated. You basic argument appears to be:If you believe something you are taught and you haven't studied it in depth for yourself you have been indoctrinated.Why do you seem to think this is only a problem for one subject? There are probably hundreds of millions that believe the moon is a large spherical rock flying around the earth despite having never studied it. Billions that believe that the periodic table of elements represents base atomic structures, without ever using an electron microscope.Heck, how many people are taught that electrons are little particles spinning around a nucleus in a nice little concentric circles? Inoctrination. Humour

It probably wouldn't, but you get the idea.

The post is about to end, when a mod scans his beady eyes on it.Thus: let me applause this intellectual honesty whilst I have the opportunity. It is a rare sight for someone to admit they were mistaken and retract a claim around here. I hope you stick around on the boards.