I am going to take it from the top and address questions till i "catch up"
In this
thread, Chris777 thinks that evolution is indoctrinated into evolutionists, and that's why there's overwhelming consensus when it comes to accepting evolution among educated people. He thinks that people that accept evolution are indoctrined to believe it and not think critically.
I believe this is the exact opposite. Most evolutionists on this board do not believe in evolution, they accept it. By accepting it, this means they understand the theory. Evidence of this is whenever Creationist tries to attack evolution, evolutionists do not hand wave the attack away, rather they give evidence to why the Creationist is wrong.
accept
1 a :
to receive willingly <accept a gift> b :
to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>
2 : to give admittance or
approval to <accept her as one of the group>
3 a :
to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions> b : to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable ****e idea is widely accepted>
c : to recognize as true : BELIEVE <refused to accept the explanation>
4 a : to make a favorable response to <accept an offer> b : to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>
5 : to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment <we don't accept personal checks>
6 : to receive (a legislative report) officially
intransitive verb : to receive favorably something offered -- usually used with of <a heart more disposed to accept of his -- Jane Austen>
__________________________________________________________________
believe;
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b :
to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so> transitive verb
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 :
to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>
from websters.
PArt of what I was attempting to convey is that evolution has become far more than the scientific theory, it has become an entire way of thinking.
You think your knowledge is incomplete, and lacking, and that you can improve it by adapting,
also the fact /theory broached upon in the other thread by its evolutionary presentation, almost entirely refutes any big questions as the one you listed below.
with the popular excuse "well when we gather enough evidence for it, or come up with a theory to explain it, then we will be able to fill up the hole you have placed in our theory. Its patchwork, if the theory fits it is adopted, whether or not it is conclusively proven as true, and then if it is disproven a "suitable replacement is sought out.
Now think about it The theory "evolves" BECAUSE of those that support it. Much the same way that it claims life evolves by selection. (which I dispute as a misnomer, in that selection requires intelect.
Examples of this is:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2807318-cambrian-explosion-explodes-evolutionary-thinking.html
A Creationist thinks that cambrian explosion presents problems for evolution. However, many evolutionists chime in, showing that pre-Cambrian fossils exist as well as Cambrian fossils. Many other evidence is given to show that this is not a problem.
But the evidence like I stated earlier is an adaptation to the "attack" made by the creationist" and if and when a "chink " is discovered in that it will be discarded and an new "defence" added to firther "evolve" the theory. Process improvement anyone?
http://www.christianforums.com/t3301286-the-seven-daughters-of-eve.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t3301286-the-seven-daughters-of-eve.html
A Creationist gives evidence of Eve's existence as the mother of all Hebrew people. Again, an evolutionist goes through each point and uses science to take a part his argument.
But the creationist is using "scientific' evidence based on some one who lived in the past, they have no reason to believe it was in fact eve, other than like you say a twisting of information.
Like I have stated before, I view the scripture as Fact, I do not nessesarily classify myself as a creationist, because again they presume they have to defend , and adapt genesis as the TE do. Because they view the scripture as insufficent. in comparison to "science" . They have also bought into the indoctrination as well, by thinking in like terms.
There are many more examples. The point is, evolutionists are not indoctrinated, they tend to be more educated in a way that they understand science and know how to use it. What Creationists see as indoctrination is nothing more than education in the very same way that children are taught the Earth goes around the Sun. Is this indoctrination? According to Creationists, it is, even though these claims are backed with evidence.
However it is possible to debate the earth circling around the sun, in that society has cast off the eart has the center of the universe, yet we have no evidence to the contrary.
I mentioned in the other thread our frame of reference plays a big role in the discription alledgedly being false by changing our perceptions. (indoctrination)
(Relativity, and doppler)
I would like to hear why Creationist thinks evolution is indoctrination and not education. I think if anything, Creationists are indoctrined because they will not critically analyze their own views. I have yet to see any Creationist give me the scientific definition of a transitional fossil and then explain why none exist.
i dont remember if i have already responded to this or not, I did notice it has been posted before, I will skip it for now, as I think I have aLREADY replied.
I will reiterate (if I havent already) that the very definition proposed by science has another one of those ingeinous preclusions for criticism of it, in that it calls itself evolving, and forces the alegged discrepency into the corner of being "undiscovered evidence to support itself"
As one who has been on both sides of giving and recieving this term "indoctrination," and as one who has experienced both sides of this debate, your post reminds me very much of why I hate it when either side uses words like this at each other.
While I understand your point, in that it emotes the connotation of propaganda, that is why i used it because both sides have.
And unfortunately both sided have drasticly altered perceptions from each other as a result of indoctrination, as I have stated elsewhere I struggle daily not to buy into my old ways of thinking, in that, they were derived from secular philosophy, and not the scripture. I am absolutely facinated at how alien it makes reading the scripture to me in that I force myself to gove up my preconceptions about it, and read it and chew upon it.
I have used it myself to describe my own past education in a YEC private school, but in the minds of my parents and teachers they were simply "teaching" me the truth. When I taught Sunday School classess, as a YEC, about creation was I indoctrinating them or teaching them what I knew to be true at that time in my spiritual and educational development?
agai nthe reason i used the term, to demonstrate that even through Good intentions, and even in many cases being well thought out, the possibility exist for the teaching to be in error.
"indoctrinate"
1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.
By the first definition here, it would seem that, on the technical side, teaching a religion is indoctrinating. For a TE, evolution is not religious but YEC is.
However, in a YEC's point of view, "evolution" is ideological and therefore in their mind teaching it would also be indoctrination.
To an atheist, we've all been indoctrinated into Christianity. Although the word does not appear to have originally held a negative conotation, it has certainly grown to have one in this present day. So, perhaps, rather than throwing words with negative conotations at eachother, we should just discuss the issues at hand.
And as I am trying to demonstrate the issue at hand is how we have adopted the teachings and beliefs fro mthe culture we live in , up to the point in many cases , we disregard scripture, as well as look for problems with it.
Okay, that's indoctrination. But then again, it's really not the public's fault that they tend to be science illiterate. For example, many people are "indoctrinated" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but when asked for why they know it is try, they'll probably fail to correctly give a scientific answer.
By calling them science illiterate, you are in effect calling science the only way of percieving reality. I say this to highlight that it forces people to learn its ideaologies, and methods, and then chastizes them if they choose not to follow them, (or if they differ). Again science has become an ideology, quite literally a world view.
As for the sun, thats another thread lol
However, what I'm talking about is why am I and other *people like Glaudy's, Jereth, or rmwilliams11 or all the biologists, scientists, and researchers are indoctrinated such as Chris777 suggested we were. We all try to understand scientific evidence, we all try to think critically about science (read any of our answers), and we try to answer or look for help when talking about science.
*sorry if I forgot anyone. There's really not enough space to include everybody.
You try to thin kcritically about science but you reject any other method of delivering you a debate, in that, you seem to require all data you take in to be "wrapped" up neatly like a piece of candy in a scientific wrapper.
take russian roulette for example you might Get lucky and hit 5 empty chambers but because you have "tested" them, you refuse the suggestion form someone else that it might not be the wisest thing to do to pull the trigger again.
and ask the average church member to outline the difference between RC's transubstantiation, Luther's consubstantiation, Zwingle's memorial view and Calvin's view of the certain presence. Yet they take communion on a regular basis, it is not like it was something unimportant or taught in passing. it is a central tenet of the Christian faith.*
that to me is indoctrination, oops, wait a minute, it can't be called indoctrination for they are totally ignorant of the issues
.
Which is why I follow the bible and not the teachings and traditions of men. and why I have come to reject evolution.
that is called ignorance not even bad information of falsehood indoctrination.
"my people are desrtoyed by their ignorance
*how many people here could explain the difference or even put their denomination into one of the competing traditions, let alone explain any of the nuances.
which is why I was suggestiong to keep things reasonably close to laymen, in that the vast majority of the population is not that bright.
though I temper this with the fact, that with much wisdom comes much sorrow.
so who has the better end of the deal?
if we can agree that both education and indoctrination are knowledge transmission of some type can we look at whether the differences between the two involve:
what information is transferred--content
or
for what purpose the process is done
or
who is doing the processes (source)
or
the technique (sleep deprivation is indoctrination technique)
but leaning toward where many have criticized the use of the word in the first place
effects
Maybe another issue is can information be verified?
as for verification, again I assert that Scientific rational, (ingeniously) defends itself, in that it both ignores scripture, as well as the things written about in it. and thus produce doubt, in the reliability of scripture, along with handicapping it by eliminating it from the equation.
another issue with verification is under scientific rational partial evidence can be used as conclusive, up until the point it is either disproven, as well as being used as concrete, with the only rational being it fits the assumption. (all "homonid" fossils)
a finger bone, is stretching credibility for example.
Thank you for your prayers, but don't worry. I am not indoctrinated. I continue to actively question all of my beliefs due to my upbringing. Should your Creation scientists ever find evidence against evolution, I would gladly embrace it. Until then, I accept (not believe) that evolution is the best current theory explaining the biodiversity of life.
Why do you need an explanation?
What is lacking in the Genesis account?
thats part of my point,
if you walk down the street do you require an explanation for where the gum on the sidewalk originated, or why its there?
yes their are things we do not understand,
yes their are things that cause curiocity,
But why is it that you feel that you are mandated to explain them all?
thats part of my world view point.
and with that I am out.
