All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

One way to try to get a handle on this is to talk with people who once believed in evolution but who have rejected it since that time.That's what occurred with me, and I can definitely see the EI process. It's incredibly widespread with obvious, blatant practices of known propaganda techniques.What is sad is that evolutionists have no awareness it seems for the use of propaganda methods in what they are doing, the false use of imagery being one of them, the asserting of debatable points as facts, and then when the "facts" change, they dogmatically assert the new position as fact.It's sad, but don't expect this board to accept it. Most here seem too steeped into the indoctrination process to accept such criticism of their perception. Sometimes it almost appears there is a need to believe in evolution.

You are clearly wrong because it's obvious that despite his claims of everyone being indoctrinated, which is true for most everyone and thus true in context, he does not claim no one can break out of that indoctrination.Imo, a useful exercise for evolutionists would be to study proganda techniques, talk with former evolutionists, and do some self-examination to see if they are influenced by indoctrination.Having once been indoctrinated by EI, and having come out of that, I can tell you honestly there is indeed an incredible level of indoctrination involved, not so different than some techniques used in cults.But I doubt you want to hear that.

I can only name myself and show you areas where propaganda techniques are still employed, often seen in the comments of evolutionists on this board.For example, one technique is to use a lack of precision in language to convey deceptively that something is proven by a fact when it may not actually be according to the data under discussion. Evolutionists do this by saying things like "evolution is a fact" and then explain an example of micro-evolution.The term evolution though is a much more narrow concept than ToE, which is universal common descent. I think evolutionists even know this, but they see no problem with using the term "evolution" interchangeably.That's a propaganda technique, and deceptive to boot.

I've shown evidence, and you are wholly wrong to suggest virtually no one that has looked at the evidence switched to abandoning evolution.I certainly did, and quite a few others have as well. There is a botany professor at NC State and quite a few other scientists who have looked at the evidence, and found evolutionism to be wanting.You are disingenious to suggest otherwise.In one sense, I was incorrect to say I could only name myself, and meant that more in the sense I can tell you more intimately of my experience. There are quite a few Phds that have rejected ToE.Do your homework and talk with them.This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 10:59 PM

Here is his bio or web-page at the university.http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/...y/faculty/gvandyke/gvandyke.html

If you are not aware, although I feel sure you are, of the lists of PhDs and other scientists that reject evolution, such as the fellows at the Discovery Institute, then you shouldn't be posting on this forum but get up to speed.I am not about to waste my time on every single thread looking up and rehashing basic knowledge. The fact that many scientists reject evolution is a fact attested to in writing by scientists. You just choose to ignore that are wasting time and space for people. Bios | Answers in Genesis This message has been edited by randman, 07-30-2005 02:51 PM

That's a bogus argument and you know it. Be honest. Anyone growing up in America and not severely sheltered is indeed exposed, from children's animation to science TV shows to mandatory education classes, to an incredible level of indoctrination. Evolution could well be argued the as the dominant religious doctrine in America.If you want to demand "proof" of such a macro-study, you know full well no one here has the individual resources to conduct such a study, and you are merely trying to kill an argument with sophistry.Maybe there is somewhere a study that details on average how many times the average American is told evolution is true. That would be interesting, but hardly necessary to hold an intelligent discussion based on what nearly every one of us has experienced in this nation.

Brad, I know that post was not directed to me, but can you break that down to normal English?

If evolution is so complicated that a PhD or highly educated person cannot hope to grasp whether it is true or not, then it should not be taught in introductory courses, not in high school nor college.

One way is to look at the process.1. Identify known propaganda techniques.
2. Review textbooks, popular TV shows, movies, etc,...and identify which, if any, of these propaganda techniques are being employed.
3. Identify the number of times the average person is exposed to someone claiming or suggesting that evolution is true within a person's lifetime prior to becoming a Phd, and reviewing how many times they have been exposed on average to arguments against evolution.Obviously, this would take some funding and would be a major study, but I think anyone can reasonably assume if they are being honest with themselves that most people are exposed to massive numbers of messages telling them evolution is true, and very little from the other perspective in comparison.Probably the reason more Phds believe in evolution has a lot to do with the fact they have been taught to believe, indoctrinated, and their belief system is thus highly coorelated to the amount, intensity, etc,...of the messages they received, along with the pressure to conform in this area.You've got to remember that science may celebrate some new discoveries, but that's not always the case. Take for example Tesla's claims of over-the-horizon radar. He was thoroughly derided for his claims even though he could and did demonstrate it.When we rediscovered over-the-horizin radar in the 50s, Tesla was proven right, but there was no mad rush to celebrate the man or look at some of his other claims that were rejected.It may be that Intelligent Design is the beginning of the crack in the wall, but I suspect regardless of what the evidence, it will take a lot of the current evolutionists dying off and thus losing their tenured positions before ID will be accepted by academia.

[qs] Most of modern medicine {bdepends[/b] on the validity of Evolutionary theory to account for its ability to cure ills and improve life for people.[/qs]Bull crap. Take out ToE, and nothing would be any different. Genetics is not dependant on the belief of universal common descent.

So you were not taught in school that evolution was true, eh?Get real. You most certainly were indoctrinated to believe in evolution. It is presented as fact, and presented in a believe-first, understand later format. It relies on deception in it's presentation such as:the false use of depictions (standard propaganda), examples such as Heackel's drawings and drawings based on them, exagerrating perfectly human (just people) as excessively ape-like (Neanderthals) and doing so for well over 50 years after it was known to be false (it's just recently that this practice has began to fade with Neanderthals), etc,...claiming evolution is observed when in reality speciation is observed, and speciation is not equivalent to universal common descentclaiming the fossil record shows evolution when in reality the fossil record shows the opposite in some respect in that species appear fully formed without any hint of the immdediate prior species, and they often exhibit great stasis once they appear, and when they disappear, we don't see them morphing or ever see the morphin process, but just see new species significantly different.claiming human embryos have fish gills or fish pouchesetc, etc,...

Here is the rest of the quote. Page Not Found - HolySmoke!It appears his resume has been exagerrated, not his sentiments.However, he looks like an IDer, not a YECer.

Yawn. I said there was a botany professor that was a creationist, and you asked for his name, and I provided it.For me personally, after seeing how they crucified the poor editor that decided to publish the ID paper last fall, I will never look to journals controlled by evolutionists to publish anything critical of their basic paradigm, and would advise against anyone out there from trying, unless they just want to make enemies that work to destroy their career.Heck, you might as well have asked some Jews to join the SS back in the 30s in hopes they could make their case there.This message has been edited by randman, 07-30-2005 03:54 PM

Charles, someone either made a mistake or lied somewhere along the line, but the people using this quote generally are not lying since they have acted in good faith believing the quote is true.Quotes being falsely attributed are a common thing across the board in the human experience.The critical factor I was pointing out was that the quote reflected the scientist's sentiments in that he rejects evolution. So even if someone mixed up the quotes of another anti-evolutionist with this scientist, they still had it right that this guy does not accept evolution.You or someone earlier on this thread acted as if there were not hundreds or thousands of scientists that reject evolution, and that is false because there are indeed.Too bad you are so petty you won't just admit to that fact, but that seems to be par for the course.