Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
60 online now:
Tangle, Tanypteryx (2 members, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,819 Year: 931/6,534 Month: 931/682 Week: 166/445 Day: 11/48 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
ringo
Member
Posts: 19379
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 241 of 312 (228897)
08-02-2005 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Chiroptera
08-02-2005 3:13 PM


Re: the cart before the horse
So you're saying the horse I'm beating has already been left for dead? And you're going after the fresh horse he's grasping at?

I can live with that. :)


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Chiroptera, posted 08-02-2005 3:13 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Chiroptera, posted 08-02-2005 4:18 PM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Omnivorous, posted 08-02-2005 9:54 PM ringo has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 312 (228898)
08-02-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by iano
08-02-2005 3:59 PM


Re: Game over - we're out of time..
Well, what do you expect? If I understand your proposition correctly, there are at least three statements that can be debated:

1) Children are exposed to a constant barrage of evolutionary theory;

2) The exposure leads to uncritical acceptance of the theory of evolution; and

3) This implies that biological scientists are too biased to objectively evaluate the theory of evolution in light of the data.

Each one of these three points can be debated and are being debated. Sadly, the third statement is the one I find most interesting, but there seems to have been little interest in discussing that one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 3:59 PM iano has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33648
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 243 of 312 (228903)
08-02-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by iano
08-02-2005 3:59 PM


Re: Game over - we're out of time..
There are several possible scenario.

Is it possible that there can be indoctrination?

I think everyone would concede that indoctrination is possible.

Does indoctrination happen?

I think everyone will concede that some indoctrination might happen but so far I've seen no evidence presented that supports indoctrination.

Is the scientific method designed to counteract the effects of indoctrination?

Still open to discussion.

Is there evidence that indoctrination, even if it is present, is not a major factor?

Yes, and I believe sufficient evidence has been presented to support that assertion. The simple fact that the TOE has changed with the discovery of additional information and data shows that it is not simply the result of indoctrination.

I'm sorry but this whole discussion is so similar to ID, CPT and other such practices that I cannot consider it more than some wild notion. It is but yet another case of bringing up some wild hypothesis and trying to determine is it's possible.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 3:59 PM iano has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 312 (228904)
08-02-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ringo
08-02-2005 4:09 PM


Re: the cart before the horse
What I'm saying is the landscape is littered with dead horses, and while you all are beating that particular one, I'm waving my hands yelling, "What about this one? What about this one?"

Iano is spending a lot of time trying to make a case that there is a constant exposure to evolution, and that this leads to an acceptance to the validity of the theory of evolution. So much time, in fact, it appears as if he assumes that if he can establish this acceptance then the conclusion that scientists are too biased to be able to objectively evaluate the theory must automatically follow.

However, it doesn't automatically follow. In fact, as I have written several times, there is good reason to believe that scientists are not biased to this degree. Since I am assuming that iano's main point is this alleged bias, I would expect that he would be spending more time on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 08-02-2005 4:09 PM ringo has not yet responded

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 245 of 312 (228905)
08-02-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by iano
08-02-2005 3:17 PM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
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?

Personally speaking (which I know doesn't count for much) is that anyone who is capable of stating that they base a decision to accept something on evidence rather than by simply believing it, should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder what the result of your 50:50 survey would have come out like if the question "Do you believe in TOE?" had been followed by the question "Why is that?"

I think the vast majority of the answers would have been something like "Uhh welll, I uhh.... I dunno" for those who do believe and "Because my pastor told me that all evolutionists will go to hell!" for those who don't. Catholics could well have answered "If it's good enough for the Pope then it's good enough for me." (At least until the new Pope began to distance himself from the TOE anyway ;))

Ask a Biology student their reason and you will get a bunch of case studies that they have read and in many cases reproduced.

Science students of any age have a bias for the truth. Do you think they believe that dinosaurs and Man lived at the same time after watching the Flintstones or "Land before Time". :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 3:17 PM iano has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 581 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 312 (228919)
08-02-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by iano
08-02-2005 8:29 AM


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

I'm sorry, but you're at a science website. Why do you think you get to talk about scientific concepts free of the evidentiary restrictions all the rest of us must labor under?

I'm sorry but the rules here apply to you, too. It's pretty clear that you're unable to support your assertions in the light of my pointed questioning, and furthermore that you're unable to distinguish between criticism of your position and criticism of yourself. So, indeed, the debate is over for you. It's over because you've lost.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 8:29 AM iano has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 581 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 312 (228921)
08-02-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by iano
08-02-2005 10:34 AM


Re: Time out
On what basis does someone who can't evaluate evolution to be true for themselves state that they believe it?

It's called "education." Or is it your view that education doesn't exist? That all education is indoctrination?

Have I been indoctrinated by Cairo-ists? You were never able to answer the question before, instead you retreated behind false accusations that I had insulted you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 10:34 AM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by robinrohan, posted 08-02-2005 5:11 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 312 (228928)
08-02-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
08-02-2005 4:57 PM


"indoctrination"
Or is it your view that education doesn't exist? That all education is indoctrination

I think that is what he must be saying. One might as well suggest that the narrative of human history I have in my head is indoctrination. I don't really question that the basic facts of history I've been taught are false. I go right on assuming, for example, that there was such an event as "the fall of the Roman empire." Of course, one might be taught a Western-centered version of history, and no doubt I have been. I am far less familiar with the history of Tibet than I am with the history of Western Europe and the US. Perhaps something analogous to the above is what he means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2005 4:57 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 249 of 312 (228944)
08-02-2005 6:07 PM


Accuracy in textbooks
I think we have some evidence of the likely quality of textbooks produced by creationists:

The Texas Freedom Network comissioned a report on the National Council On Bible Curriculum in Public Schools

The Executive Summary contains damning comments:


The curriculum uses a discredited urban legend that NASA has evidence that two days are missing in time, thus “confirming” a biblical passage about the sun standing still [pages 116-17].


The answer key to a quiz [page 87] identifies a pharaoh as “Hyksos.” Hyksos was the name of an Asiatic-Semitic people who once ruled Egypt


The curriculum is shockingly lax when it comes to properly crediting sources – inexcusable in any scholarly writing at either the high school or college level. For example, the wording of the sections titled “Pilate” and “Herod,” which constitute pages 195-196 in their entirety, is identical to that of passages from the articles “Pilate, Pontius,” and “Herod the Great” in Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. No source is cited.

Full report (pdf)

This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-02-2005 06:15 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 6:24 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Yaro
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 250 of 312 (228948)
08-02-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
08-02-2005 6:07 PM


Re: Accuracy in textbooks
Yes Paul!

But one secular text book used drawings BASEd on Haeckles! Burn them!!! BURN THEM ALL!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2005 6:07 PM PaulK has not yet responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 3868 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 251 of 312 (228961)
08-02-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by iano
08-02-2005 12:53 PM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
iano writes:

I cannot demonstrate critically and objectively why I believe + yet I believe nonetheless = EI

iano writes:

Opening Proposition:
Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists. And because of that, it is impossible for such scientists to claim they can to be objective about evidence which they use to argue that evolution is true.

So, EI makes it impossible to be objective, and (not objective) + (belief) = EI. Dude, that's circular.

p1. If EI; (not objective)
p2. EI
c1. Therefore; (not objective).

p3. (Belief) + (not objective)= EI
p4. Belief
p5. Not objective (c1)
c2. Therefore; EI.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-02-2005 07:16 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 12:53 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by iano, posted 08-03-2005 6:07 AM DominionSeraph has responded

Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 252 of 312 (229000)
08-02-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ringo
08-02-2005 4:09 PM


Re: the cart before the horse
Those horses were dead when found: one cannot prove the negative Iano insists be proven.

Still, by his assertions, all education is necessarily indoctrination. Yet people throw off indoctrination all the time, and this forum proves that education can fail.

What indoctrination could have been greater than that preceding the Enlightenment, when questioning the received truth of ecclesiastical authorities could get you imprisoned, exiled, or burned? Nonetheless, the stubbornly questioning mind went there, again and again.

But the non-starter at the heart of his assertion is the notion that only by mastering the practice of a science can one reach reasonable judgments about the products of that science, be they material or theoretical.

It is true that we cannot become experts in every science. But we can take a look at the reasonableness and productivity of their hypotheses. The power of Newtonian physics was ultimately demonstrated in machines that reduced toil, not on the printed page. The popular proof of Einstein's work was not found on the blackboard, it was found over Hiroshima.

It is the scientific method that confers an authority so great that Iano wants to call it indoctrination. We have become predisposed to listen closely when a broad consensus of scientists tells us something important, and with good reason: centuries of proven performance.

That we are like our parents, but different, and that we have greater or lesser success as a result of our traits, is obvious: no doctorate required. The popular knowledge of animal husbandry did much to gain Darwin's theory entry into 19th century minds. It was not a cabal of scientists that conferred wide acceptance of the ToE in the 20th century but rather the eminent reasonableness of the theory in light of the geologic/fossil record, and the stunning successes of biological scientists who applied the theory: the Green Revolution, finely turned vaccinations, the forensic power of DNA analysis, the promise of new gene therapies for ancient scourges.

I suppose the greatest compliment paid to the ToE is the desperate flailing of Intelligent Designers: only by aping science can they hope to create any doubts at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 08-02-2005 4:09 PM ringo has not yet responded

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 253 of 312 (229007)
08-02-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by iano
08-02-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Oi Sidelined....
iano

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...

Fine.Now here is a puzzle.Why is monkeypox deadly to humans?

This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-08-02 09:51 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 10:45 AM iano has not yet responded

jsmall
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 312 (229015)
08-03-2005 12:33 AM


MIssing one big point
I haven't read every single entry in this debate so please forgive if I repeat. I see the original posters point that to understand evolution today you need suchs a degree of expertise that you get indoctrinated on the way. I disagree, but I understand it. My point is that he is only looking at evolution TODAY. We have to remember that evolution started with very simple data that was fairly easy to interpret. Darwin and his colleagues weren't talking about alleles, DNA, or any of that fancy stuff. It was a simple matter of seeing progressions in animal fossils and noticing their placement, groupings, layers, etc... Any layman could look at the evidence in probably half an hour and draw their own conclusions.

Only recently has it gotten much more technical and difficult for the layman to really engage in the debate. But part of that is because those who would refute darwin's basic premise (which has been tweaked over the 150 years since it's introduction!) make it impossible to do so in a simple matter. Mostly by the time-honored technique of lying, they muddle the issue of whether layers really are the way scientists have been observing since such observations began. Or whether those jawbones really changed into earbones. So scientists have to point to more technical proof "See how the genetic mutation rate points to comm ancestors of these 2 animals about 4 million years ago?" or some such. Then the doubters throw back stuff about misreading data on DNA. So it's a vicious circle.


Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 12:55 PM jsmall has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4013 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 255 of 312 (229030)
08-03-2005 1:38 AM


indoctrination has characteristics
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-03-2005 4:05 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 08-03-2005 7:48 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 275 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 12:57 PM randman has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022