"Brainwashed" by evolution?

[lucaspa]

In another thread Driven said that he had been "brainwashed by evolution" for 32 years. I've heard this statement many times by creationists. So I'm looking for what makes you think evolution is wrong and how you were brainwashed.

 

[FireFort23]

I won't get into how evolution is wrong in this thread (the amount of scientific evidence against it is huge), but I will quickly tell how MOST people become "brainwashed" by the THEORY of evolution.

Most people think of brainwashing as a sort of hypnotic ritual with loud music or subliminal messages, but in the case of evolution, I believe it has to do more with providing a one-sided argument over and over again until a person simply believes it.

This is what happens every day in science classes in schools all over America. If you think about it, every science class of public schools teaches evolution - a theory. But they teach it from a textbook and claim that it is fact.

Now, if a person is taught the same thing over and over again from the age of 5 until they're 18, of course they'd believe it -- that is brainwashing!

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I won't get into how evolution is wrong in this thread (the amount of scientific evidence against it is huge), but I will quickly tell how MOST people become "brainwashed" by the THEORY of evolution.

Most people think of brainwashing as a sort of hypnotic ritual with loud music or subliminal messages, but in the case of evolution, I believe it has to do more with providing a one-sided argument over and over again until a person simply believes it.

This is what happens every day in science classes in schools all over America. If you think about it, every science class of public schools teaches evolution - a theory. But they teach it from a textbook and claim that it is fact.

Now, if a person is taught the same thing over and over again from the age of 5 until they're 18, of course they'd believe it -- that is brainwashing!

But what you describe is exactly what every fundamental church does.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

This is what happens every day in science classes in schools all over America. If you think about it, every science class of public schools teaches evolution - a theory. But they teach it from a textbook and claim that it is fact.

You could say it is a one-sided argument. Although science tends to change, as of now, evolution is the dominant theory. Its competitors have failed to overcome it sucessfully. However, you do make an interesting point there.

As presented here, it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is how the information is taken in. Looking blankly onto their books, they see the one theory that they are being tested for. Rote memorization gets them through. In this time, they are not taught the critical thinking skills so that they can make their decision wisely. Instead, in a way, they are indeed being brainwashed.

Luckily for the evolutionists (such as myself), it is indeed a golden age !

 

[lucaspa]

I won't get into how evolution is wrong in this thread (the amount of scientific evidence against it is huge),

But this is exactly what I wanted you to do. Brainwashing also involves telling a lot of untruths.

but I will quickly tell how MOST people become "brainwashed" by the THEORY of evolution.

Ah, here we have the "it's only a theory" fallacy. And this is going to be something, FireFort, that I am going to look at closely -- that it is creationists who are brainwashed. And this is one untruth that is used by the professional creationists.

This is what happens every day in science classes in schools all over America. If you think about it, every science class of public schools teaches evolution - a theory. But they teach it from a textbook and claim that it is fact.

As far as we know now, evolution is a fact. Do you object that we teach round earth as fact? Or gravity? Or that the sun is the center of the solar system? All of those are theories. But they are such well-supported theories that we accept them as (provisionally) fact unless and until they are shown to be wrong.

Now, if a person is taught the same thing over and over again from the age of 5 until they're 18, of course they'd believe it -- that is brainwashing!

As someone pointed out, this is also what happens in fundamentalist churches. Is that also brainwashing?

Brainwashing also has the component that what is being taught has to be false. Also, that the people doing it are knowingly implanting false information. Which will get us back to whether the professional creationists have brainwashed you.

So, back to topic. What false information have evolutionists knowingly put out about evolution?

 

[ThePhoenix]

I won't get into how evolution is wrong in this thread (the amount of scientific evidence against it is huge), but I will quickly tell how MOST people become "brainwashed" by the THEORY of evolution.

Most people think of brainwashing as a sort of hypnotic ritual with loud music or subliminal messages, but in the case of evolution, I believe it has to do more with providing a one-sided argument over and over again until a person simply believes it.

This is what happens every day in science classes in schools all over America. If you think about it, every science class of public schools teaches evolution - a theory. But they teach it from a textbook and claim that it is fact.

Now, if a person is taught the same thing over and over again from the age of 5 until they're 18, of course they'd believe it -- that is brainwashing!

One-sided arguements tend to develop in situations where the arguements all go one way. Evolution vs. creationism is like a squad of crack marines against a Viking warrior. Who's armed with a bannana. And is dead drunk.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

One-sided arguements tend to develop in situations where the arguements all go one way. Evolution vs. creationism is like a squad of crack marines against a Viking warrior. Who's armed with a bannana. And is dead drunk.

That makes for a good quote!

 

[FireFort23]

But what you describe is exactly what every fundamental church does.

There's a difference though. With churches, the member is free to leave and find a church that teaches differently...or not go to church at all. Public schools, on the other hand ALL teach the same thing. Students do not have a choice but to be taught evolution.

 

[FireFort23]

Ah, here we have the "it's only a theory" fallacy. And this is going to be something, FireFort, that I am going to look at closely -- that it is creationists who are brainwashed. And this is one untruth that is used by the professional creationists.

I was simply making this reply to answer the question asked, not start a debate.

As far as we know now, evolution is a fact. Do you object that we teach round earth as fact? Or gravity? Or that the sun is the center of the solar system? All of those are theories. But they are such well-supported theories that we accept them as (provisionally) fact unless and until they are shown to be wrong.

The difference here is that the round earth and gravity have been PROVEN. The Earth is shown to be round from space photography. If you drop a ball, it falls...always. That PROVES gravity. As far as evolution goes, much of that religion has been DISPROVEN...none has been PROVEN. Again, I (as I'm sure many other here do as well), have a miriad of SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACTS that both disprove and support creation.

 

[FireFort23]

One-sided arguements tend to develop in situations where the arguements all go one way. Evolution vs. creationism is like a squad of crack marines against a Viking warrior. Who's armed with a bannana. And is dead drunk.

Are you suggesting that Creationism has no evidence? That's hilarious!

 

[ThePhoenix]

Are you suggesting that Creationism has no evidence? That's hilarious!

And true too. I've spent a long time in these forums, I've done some research, and usually creationists consider it a victory when they demonstrate some well known method of non-organic carbon exchange. Polonium Halos, rapidly flip-flopping magnet field, mile high water gysers, earth being trapped on the edge of a black hole that slows time and accelerates light so that the stars ARE older then the 6000 year old earth, rapidly increasing half-lives (fried earth anyone?), accelerated micro-evolution (far faster then what the theory of evolution, not to mention evidence suggests), imposed barriers between species that prevent them from straying too far from their genetic structure, yeah. I'm pretty sure I got the high points, or at least the ones that stick out in my memory.

 

[FireFort23]

And true too. I've spent a long time in these forums, I've done some research, and usually creationists consider it a victory when they demonstrate some well known method of non-organic carbon exchange. Polonium Halos, rapidly flip-flopping magnet field, mile high water gysers, earth being trapped on the edge of a black hole that slows time and accelerates light so that the stars ARE older then the 6000 year old earth, rapidly increasing half-lives (fried earth anyone?), accelerated micro-evolution (far faster then what the theory of evolution, not to mention evidence suggests), imposed barriers between species that prevent them from straying too far from their genetic structure, yeah. I'm pretty sure I got the high points, or at least the ones that stick out in my memory.

Huh!?! lol

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Are you suggesting that Creationism has no evidence? That's hilarious!

I have yet to see anything that indicates a young Earth with a catastropic flood.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Huh!?! lol

Pheonix simply listed the subtheories of Creationism that have no supporting evidence and even contradict the evidence. Creationism needs these subtheories to work.

 

[notto]

If you drop a ball, it falls...always. That PROVES gravity.

But it doesn't prove the 'theory' of gravity. It shows the effect of gravity, not the cause.

If that is what it takes to 'prove' gravity, then we can consider evolution proven as well. The fossil record bears out that life in the past is very different than life today and shows gradual change in organisms as their environment changed. This is FACT.

The theory of evolution attempts to explain why this is.

Evolution, like gravity, is both a fact and a theory. The fact can be observed (ball falls, life changes) but the theory can NOT be proven, only disproven (falsified).

 

[Dracil]

If you drop a ball, it falls...always. That PROVES gravity.

Actually, the only thing that proves is that the ball dropped. This time (and perhaps the last 100 times we dropped it). We actually still have to assume that the ball will always drop in the future. But the more times we test it, the probability of it being true approaches 100%, but never quite reaches it. And that's another thing about science. Science doesn't actually prove anything, it only disproves. If you want proofs, study math. Besides, showing the ball dropping is not the same as showing that an invisible force is what causes the ball to fall.

And I just realized I said nearly the same thing as the above post.

 

[lucaspa]

I was simply making this reply to answer the question asked, not start a debate.

Discussion. Sorry, the statement indicates an incorrect idea what a theory is. Of course I am not going to let it stand as though it is correct.

The difference here is that the round earth and gravity have been PROVEN. The Earth is shown to be round from space photography. If you drop a ball, it falls...always. That PROVES gravity.

I'm sorry, but neither theory is "proven". Strictly speaking, it is impossible to prove a theory. Let's take your examples.

All the data strongly supports round earth, including the photographs. However, it is always possible that there is a shape out there that we haven't thought of that better describes the shape of the earth than "round". In fact, this has been done. Originally the shape of the earth was not "round", because that is not precise. Instead, it was "sphere". Later observations showed that the earth is not a sphere, so that theory was falsified. The current theory is that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

As for gravity, this is a classic example of why theories are never "proven" i the strict sense. Yes, every time so far that we have dropped a rock, it has fallen. But there are an infinite number of rocks yet to drop and it is possible that one of them might not fall. Again, if you look at history the theory of gravity originally was that all objects drop when released. Then along came first hot air balloons and then helium balloons. Release either one and it does not drop, does it? So the theory has been modified so that "all objects drop when released unless they displace more air than they weigh."

As far as evolution goes, much of that religion has been DISPROVEN...none has been PROVEN.

1. Evolution is not a religion. If you think evolution is atheism, then atheism is the faith. Not evolution. But evolution never has been, and is not, atheism.

2. Well, I'm asking you to be specific about evolution being disproven. Whenever I have looked at specific areas, it turns out that evolution has not been disproven.

3. By your standards of "proof" -- direct observation -- both natural selection and common ancestry have been proven. That is, we can see natural selection modifying populations and have seen new species form from old both in the lab and in the wild.

Again, I (as I'm sure many other here do as well), have a miriad of SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACTS that both disprove and support creation.

Let's be very clear here. We are NOT talking about Creation! Do you hear that? Let me say this another way: Creation and creationism are two different things! Creation is the idea that God created the heavens and the earth. Creationism is a specific how God did that. Evolution is also a specific how that God did that. See the second quote in my signature.

Now, in science the important thing is to disprove or falsify. I know of no facts that disprove creation. There are a myriad of observations that disprove creationism. And that is the end of the story for creationism. It doesn't matter how may facts support creationism if there are facts that disprove it.

 

[lucaspa]

Are you suggesting that Creationism has no evidence? That's hilarious!

Creationism has no "evidence" that is either
1. Not a result of bad methodology
2. Not a result of fraud.
3. Or cannot be explained by any other theory.

In order for us to consider it "evidence" in the way you are using the term, the evidence has to 1. be accurate, 2. be honest, and 3. can be explained only by creationism.

Now, in evolution, the data that led to Nebraska man and Piltdown man were discarded for the first 2 reasons. No one uses them as evidence for evolution. However, creationism still uses polonium halos and Inca stones, for example, even tho both have been admitted to be frauds by the people who perpetrated the frauds.

 

[FireFort23]

Let's be very clear here. We are NOT talking about Creation! Do you hear that? Let me say this another way: Creation and creationism are two different things! Creation is the idea that God created the heavens and the earth. Creationism is a specific how God did that. Evolution is also a specific how that God did that. See the second quote in my signature.

Now, in science the important thing is to disprove or falsify. I know of no facts that disprove creation. There are a myriad of observations that disprove creationism. And that is the end of the story for creationism. It doesn't matter how may facts support creationism if there are facts that disprove it.

Okay, a quick comment on your signature... That guy does not believe the Bible and therefore holds no credance with me.

My reasoning behind rebutting evolution is because from what I've researched, it is SCIENTIFICALLY and GEOGRAPHICALLY impossible for the Earth to be more than 6,000 years old. And that alone rebukes the ENTIRE evolution theory. There is, however, no credible evidence that the Earth IS older than 6,000 years old..... Prove me wrong

 

[ThePhoenix]

Ok.

If the earth is 6000 years old then black skin and facial build evolved in three thousand years (we have pyramid art that shows black facial structure). Alternatively white skin and build evolved in 3000 years. Chinese body structure and facial build must also have evolved in a similar period or time (or white and black builds evolved from that).

If the earth is 6000 years old then half lives would have to have been much shorter. Very much shorter. Unfortunately this results in more energy being released. Very much more energy. The earth has not been charbroiled recently...

If everything was created 6000 years ago then God created light in the formation of supernova, supernovas that never occured. That makes God a deciever. Therefore the earth must have a signifigantly shorter history then the universe. This implies that the earth was temporally slowed. So either the earth spent a long time at speeds of .8 c relative to the rest of the universe, and then slowed down, or the earth spent some time near/in a black hole that caused the artificially short time span the earth has existed.

I can go on...