How can evolution explain body symmetry?

You gotta be kidding right? "Admin will work with me to help decide where it should go"?? That's it!! I'm dumping my Bible and getting down on my knees to worship the God of EvCforum Admin (or whichever Site-Designer-God it is that these high priests serve)Thanks...

sign.....One of the problems we have as a forum is that we are a target for hit and run posters, you know the type "if EVILoution was true it would be a fact not a theory!", "I don't come from no dirty monkey and let me tell you...."and so on.So as a community, we decided that the best way forward was to have an approval process that cut out much of the dross that you find on other sites. We as a COMMUNITY like it like that.

Hear, hear!

Think I'll stay away from wit in the future when I'm paying a genuine compliment to someone/thing. It was the idea that Admin would go to the trouble and help hone /filter a topic for the good of all that added to my early-onset admiration for this site.It's probably that "You gotta be kidding' has a different meaning Statside to the one we've absorbed on t'other side of the pond.
Mutation and natural selection operating in the field of language maybe!

Well you'd need to ask the american posters about that.My apologies for jumping the gun on that one.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jul-2005 10:17 AM

quote:

---

There exists a mass of evidence to indicate that indoctrination has occured: folk are told Evolution is a fact for from their formative years upwards, long before they have been equipped (if ever they truly could be) to establish the facts for themselves. Note: whether the indoctrination is ultimately true or false matters not. It's still indoctrination.

---

There exists a mass of evidence to indicate that indoctrination has occured: folk are told that the Earth is a sphere is a fact for from their formative years upwards, long before they have been equipped (if ever they truly could be) to establish the facts for themselves. Note: whether the indoctrination is ultimately true or false matters not. It's still indoctrination.

quote:

---

Maybe in going public, the ID-ers are taking a leaf out of Darwins book. It worked pretty well for him!!

---

Tell me, just what do you think the practice of science was like in Darwin's day?What was the leading professional journal, for example? What were the PhD requirements?

Let me tell you something about how science works. There are thousands of people working in the biological sciences. They are working at thousands of colleges, universities, and research institutions, each one having their own hiring policies and their own tenure policies. They publish in hundreds of journals, each one with their own boards of editors and each one determining themselves what will be published. They are funded by hundreds of governmental and nongovernment agencies, each one with its own criteria for determining where there money goes.So, what is the mechanism that keeps new ideas down, or that keeps the accepted propaganda going? You are going to have to actually present some evidence that it is because of "indoctrination" that ID is not being accepted.

I wasn't homing in particularily on 'indoctrination keeping ID down'. What I was wondering was how does a science take account of, test for and when found, filter out the possible distorting effects of indoctrination on it's interpretation and analysis of data.Like, how does a science even begin to find out whether it is indoctrinated or not? Arguments like "we examine the evidence objectively and it's subjected to rigorous peer review...etc, etc" don't suffice. Such activities aren't measuring instruments that can detect indoctrination. An indoctrinated peer might well be ruthlessly rigorous in their critique, but that doesn't make them one iota less indoctrinated, should they be thus affected)A Mechanism of Indoctrination.
Okay, take virtually every adult-believing child in the world. Have trusted adults tell those children over and over, that Evolution is how it happened. Have lots of tv programmes reinforce the message. Not just natural history programmes, but cartoons, films and nature programmes too. Then when the child gets old enough to begin learning about science, develop things a bit by filling in some details. Not details that 'prove' anything - the child can't grasp (anymore than most adults can) the nitty gritty detail that make all the difference between, for example Evolutionary biochemistry and ID biochemistry. Just tell of an ancient earth, tell them how an ant became an antelope and draw pictures showing the metamorphisis of one into the other. When they get to college, have the geology, biochemistry, anatomy and physics textbooks inform the timid, awestruck freshmen and women in sombre tones "Billions of years ago...."Mechanism of Indoctrination II
The above process manufactures the canvas on which a formal scientific education can paint the picture of a scientist. Me, I'm an engineer - not a scientist. Close enough in disciplne though, to have reasonable insight into what science college is about. "This is the programme you need to learn to become x,y,z. These labs, those classes, that thesis". To a not insignificant degree, it's Painting-By-Numbers on a pre-prepared canvas.There isn't a time from birth, when a person is free of being told Evolution is the way it happened. At every stage of development, at every stage of life, that's the message. I'm not implying that scientists are robots, incapable of free thought. I just don't think the thought is as free as some like to believe. Maybe there's a way by which this indoctrination could be resisted by men and woman. If there is, I wonder by what mechanism?p.s.1. I don't hold for a minute that there is some big Scientific conspiracy going on to make all this happen. I'm inclined to think that the indoctrination is blind and purposeless - though still able to achieve remarkable results. Some here at least, will have no prolem with that view.p.s.2.It matters not whether Evolution is true or not. The contention is that, the majority of scientists in the world have been indoctrinated to believe in Evolution BEFORE they became scientists. Thus, they cannot truly evaluate whether something is actually true or not, if they already think, or are inclined to think it is true. Or if they claim that they can indeed overcome the affects of pre-disposition, by what mechanism have they achieved this?p.s. 3 Apologies if responding here is incorrect but I'm taking a lead from some veterans above as to site etiquette

quote:

---

make all the difference between, for example Evolutionary biochemistry and ID biochemistry

---

That the page is blank when we turn to that section?

quote:

---

There isn't a time from birth, when a person is free of being told Evolution is the way it happened. At every stage of development, at every stage of life, that's the message. I'm not implying that scientists are robots, incapable of free thought. I just don't think the thought is as free as some like to believe. Maybe there's a way by which this indoctrination could be resisted by men and woman. If there is, I wonder by what mechanism?

---

But we are even MORE strongly "indoctrinated" about gravity from an early age. If what you say is true we should have a nice simple theory for that and no argument.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jul-2005 02:23 PM

Yet we only hear that argument from people who don't accept evolution.Why do you suppose the "indoctrination" doesn't work on the people who know the least about the subject? I would think that the more one studies a subject, the less effect "indoctrination" would have.(And yes, there probably is a better place for this discussion.)

---

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

Maybe.. but maybe not to a scientist, evolutionary or otherwise whose strong suit isn't biochemistry - assuming there are any

Oh sorry - the smiley was for fun but the message wasn't, the page really is blank. Iders don't actually do experiments or perform anything that resembles research. They just publish blogs about whatever current idea they have.I know you may think I'm pulling you leg but I'm not!

quote:

---

Like, how does a science even begin to find out whether it is indoctrinated or not?

---

Scientists don't worry about a question like this. If and when a new idea is presented, either known data contradicts it, or it doesn't. It explains currently known data or it doesn't. These are not a matter of indoctrination. Facts are available to all, and the facts can be checked against what the theory says.Then the new idea precicts new phenomena that should be observed, and then either these phenomena are observed or they are not. Again, it is not a matter of indoctrination. The new idea can be examined by anyone, and a prediction can be generated; this prediction can be examined by anyone to see whether it really logically follows from the new idea. Then anyone can design an experiment or observation program to see if the phenomena are observed. Again, indoctrination does not enter into it; the experiments are performed and the observations are made; either they are consistent with the predictions or they are not.Again, ID is an idea that is out there. What does it explain? Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems have been shown to not be irreducibly complex, and in fact are reducibly complex in exactly the manner that evolution predicts.What does ID predict? Dembski's "spedified complexity" is mostly a bunch of sophistry that has little relevance to the real world.This is not a matter of indoctrination. It is a fact that ID explains nothing and predicts nothing. That is why it is not taken seriously as science.Unless by "indoctrination" you mean that scientists should seriously consider ideas that cannot be empirically tested.

It could well happen in other areas of science - although I can't think of one where the indoctrination begins at such an early age in such a socially widespread manner. But the question "how does Science protect against...." does apply to all areas of science.If the question is an old one, what are the old, compelling answers? I don't suppose that. In seems to work for the man in the street - who knows nothing. It worked in my father for a while. He's a physics lecturer and while knowing a litte, is not immersed in the field (he's rooted on the fence of "I don't know" at the moment). And it works a lot on those who are immersed in the subject. There are geoligists, paleantologists, anatomists, biochemists etc who are qualified and experienced yet don't believe in evolution. Expertise in an area doesn't seem to be the differentiating factor. That the naysayers are in the minority matters not. Majority rule is not an adequate defence against indoctrination. The mechanism I described for it would ensure most are indoctrinated. Hey, did I just come up with a piece of evidence!!?Neither is deeper exposure an adequate defence. If the indoctrination got there first then its through those eyes the scientist will see. That's the point of indoctrination after all. Hitler was planning on a 1000 year Reich. Despite the fact he got his ass wupped, folk still believe the his doctrine. His time is gone but there is no good reason to suppose that deeper exposure to his indoctrinisation would have lessened it's effect. Quite the opposite I would think Etiquette-wise, is it strictly necessary? If folk keep asking questions then can it not stay? (In truth, I don't fancy having to type the bleedin' thing out again!)

And it occurs to me that your argument is one against the truth of the christian religion.