32. 20 Reasons Why I Say You Are Indoctrinated
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available on Amazon. The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The page begins below.
If I give you an answer that says you are indoctrinated, I am not trying to demean you. I am also not trying to avoid a debate question. I am not saying you are dumb in any way. I only say this when the facts of your answers show indoctrination. I was indoctrinated with this beguiling science as well, so I know the mental games you must play on yourself to believe the fantasy of evolution. And I am a very intelligent person. Just fact, not bragging. I fell for this science in a paleontology class in col
lege. Evolution made so much sense to me, far more than the “Adam and Eve” story that I had given up years before, but never replaced. I just didn’t know how things came about, but I was and still am incredibly fascinated with the subject. When I went to my first class, there was the bearded Ph.D. instructor that my very religious father had warned me about, showing how evolution was the source of everything in nature. The first day he asked, “Please raise your hand if you do not believe in Darwinian evolution.” I raised mine, along with about half of the other students. At the end of the first week, he asked for a raising of hands again. There was nary a one. He had us all. We were all convinced, and the indoctrination began. In fact, it was already successful.
About twenty years ago, when I was still a firm believer in evolution, I began thinking and having doubts about the notion that an entity with absolutely zero intelligence could put together all of the incredible bio-systems of nature. I picked up one of my texts on the subject and turned to a page that showed how early primates and man have the same lower first molar configuration with five cusps. Apes have four. Supposedly this showed that man is evolutionarily related to those five cusped early primates. That ONE FACT satisfied me…….temporarily. It convinced me that evolution was the way EVERYTHING happened. That littlest of crumbs convinced me that natural selection et al formed all of nature. Astounding. How could I have possibly been so fooled? Why was I so gullible. I was! And I freely admit it. I was indoctrinated. And that one example meant the indoctrination was working well.
These are the indicators to me that you are indoctrinated:
(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea. Here is a perfect example:
Re: the evolution of vision: (This is an actual YouTube answer): (eyes)”couldn’t assemble itself”…moron…do you know how snowflakes form? what’s your try to explain snowflakes? “fairies did it”? ”
This guy has no idea that there is no purpose or biological function to the design of snowflakes and uses them as his answer anyway.
(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do. One great example is that I ask the question about how bio-systems, such as a hepatic system, which had to evolve in a single species, migrated from the original species to all of the other species that then and now have livers. I usually get this answer:
“Traits” change and those changes are caused by mutations and are passed from generation to generation. Additional changes occur, and eventually, through tiny steps over millions of years……..”
The writers obviously have no idea about the difference between “traits” which are items such as eye color, height, weight, hair color, and “biological systems”, which includes items such as hepatic systems, vision, auditory systems, musculoskeletal,….. The evo-responders are on autopilot. They just spout the answer, because that is what they were taught. There is no thought as to whether the question is answered or not. Push the button, out comes the dogma displaying indoctrination. And this is common beyond my wildest expectations. Intelligent people who must know the difference between “traits” and “biological systems” write as if they don’t.
(3) I pose a question, and instead of answering you choose to demean my education, which is extensive, my knowledge about evolution, which is also extensive, (remember, I was an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that) my IQ, my upbringing….you say ANYTHING but answer the question posed.
(4) You play the religion card. Again, I am not religious. You bring up “the magic man in the sky”, “sky fairies”, “bronze age books and goat-herders”, anything to distract from the question you are showing you can’t answer.
(5) You call me inane names. I have already been called everything you can think of and more. IDiot, fuckwit, moron, retard, Creotard. Again, by doing this you are avoiding answering a question you can’t deal with. So this is the way you choose to distract from that question. It simply shows indoctrination.
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read “mountains” of pro-evolution peer-reviewed papers (see page 5 on this blog), pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of the “big” pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don’t rely on the thinking of others. Don’t refer me to a Google “look up”, or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.
(7) When an astounding but sound fact is posed to you that may not quite fit into evolution’s origin of species and nature, your response is to demean the fact and above all defend evolution instead of discussing the fact with interest, and a desire to really dig down and understand our beginnings.
(8) You think you are 100% right about this subject that no person who ever lived has the answers for. There are no 100%’s in the subject of the origin of nature and us.
(9) You are willing to accept that immense numbers of the most preposterous events imaginable occurred without the slightest bit of skepticism or wonder, simply because someone told you they did.
(10) You can’t entertain even the slightest notion that you may have been fooled into accepting dogma that your teachers and books have taught you.
The following is a vid I made on the first ten reasons:
(11) When you refer to your field of interest, or to your own thoughts and feelings regarding evolution, using plural pronouns like “WE” and “US”. “WE” think….” “How can WE trust stevebee….””WE have evidence……” You have placed yourself in a group. A black hole of thought. You are not an individual and you do not think like one. No science discussion I have ever been in, be, it astronomy, biology, genetics, has the person I was discussing with used the term “WE” to tell me what a group of scientists has, thinks, or feels, with the exception of evolution. An exception is if they are actually part of a small team of scientists working on a project. Then “we” have found a new planet circling………” is not groupthink and is appropriate communication. If you talk in “we” instead of “they”, or “the scientists”, you are identifying yourself inadvertently as a member of a groupthink process.
By the way, for evolutionauts that want to rag on my “we’s”: I do use “we” in describing mankind. For example: “How lucky “we” are to live in a time that “we” know what black holes are.” Those “we’s” are describing mankind, not a group that all thinks and acts exactly alike.
(12) When you give me lists that I am supposed to believe and probably look up, to answer a rational question. “Oh, Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The proof is Ornithodira, Dinosaurs, Saurischian dinosaurs, Therapods, Tetanurae, Coelesaurs, Manirapterans.”
A guy named Calilasseia on www.rationalskepticism.org gave me this answer to my very basic easy to understand question on my population paradox page and at their site regarding time for doubling averages:
“So, already, the authors inform us that they have analyzed no less than seven different population dynamic models, namely:
[1] The Ricker model;
[2] The Hassell model;
[3] The tent map model;
[4] The Beverton-Holt model;
[5] The Skellam model;
[6] The quadratic model;
[7] The theta-Ricker model.”
Throwing lists at questions is just a form of overwhelming the question with so much information and effort needed to research each entity on the list, the questioner will throw his/her hands up and give up. Calilasseia also loves throwing lists of “peer-reviewed papers” at the question which has the same effect.
(13) When you tell me something is “easy evolution”. For example, “Oh, vision is EASY evolution”. Nothing in nature is “easy” or simple. In fact even the most basic and “simple” entities are complex beyond imagination.
(14) When you tell me something has been solved when it hasn’t? “Oh, irreducible complexity has been refuted long ago.” (It hasn’t.) “The evolution of heart/lung systems has been solved years ago.” (It hasn’t)
(15) When you use trite evo-debate terms to respond to a rational challenge or question: “THAT is an argument from incredulity!” “Your answer is nothing but an argument from ignorance.” “That has been debunked…..” Notice the complete lack of an answer and display of knowledge these demonstrate.
(16) When you respond to a challenge by saying, “You don’t understand evolution.” I find it astounding when evolutionauts use this as a defense mechanism against me when I was an evolutionaut for many years, and odds are my education (way beyond an MS degree) and post education studies have gone far far beyond those of 98% of evolutionauts. The basis for evolution is the simplest of ALL “sciences”, one a 3rd grader could understand. Gradual naturally selected genetic changes over time that brought about ALL of the species and bio-systems of nature. That’s it. And the “you don’t understand” response is trite, typical, not informative, and a cop out.
(17) You say that nature’s incredible bio-systems are “poorly designed”. “Vision is “poorly designed”? “Heart-lung systems are “poorly designed”? Is bat sonar poorly designed? Is our musculoskeletal system? A ball and socket joint? Intelligence? Our brains? Right. They may not be perfect in every way possible, but poorly designed? Sorry. The “poorly designed” mantra only proves that the source of all of living nature wasn’t perfect; astounding beyond belief in its designs, but not perfect. Imperfect design in no way proves that evolution is the source. But it is used so frequently in an attempt to prove evolution. “The design is imperfect, therefore evolution is the source of all living organisms and systems.” This notion would be quickly laughed out of any logic class.
(18) The “divine fallacy” argument: This phony argument is used so often by evolutionauts that it’s nauseating. What amazes me is how they use the same arguments over and over, like they have a handbook of absurd arguments. This strawman is buried in its own fecal material. This is the definition and clarification of this argument from a pro-evolution website (http://www.skepdic.com/dvinefal.html):
“……….a species of non sequitur reasoning which goes something like this: I can’t figure this out, so God must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, God did it. Or, I can’t think of any other explanation; therefore, God did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, God is behind it. This fallacy is also a variation of the alien fallacy: I can’t figure this out, so aliens must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, aliens did it. Or, I can’t think of any other explanation; therefore, aliens did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, aliens are behind it. Another variation of the fallacy goes something like this: I can’t figure this out, so paranormal forces must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, paranormal forces did it. Or, I can’t think of any other explanation; therefore, paranormal forces did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, paranormal forces are behind it.”
Problem #1 with this argument is that NO person who ever lived including Darwin himself could figure”it” out. No person understands how life formed. Or what life is. We can’t even define life. Does that mean evolutionauts are riding right along with everyone else on this one? Of course, they are. They just pretend this problem doesn’t exist for them and slough it off. Life cannot be synthesized, so what do evolutionauts attribute the origin of life too? They exfoliate the whole subject, and simply say “the origin of life isn’t part of evolution”. The beginning of life isn’t part of the evolution of life? Absurd. People who can tell you how life diversified but cannot tell you how it began are nothing but naive in their beliefs. Do they go for some unknown force for the originator of life? They just don’t say. And by not saying, they are in the same hole as everyone else. They just won’t admit it. They must make you believe they are “real science”.
The other problem with this strategy, in my case, is I don’t assign the origin to a religious God. I assign the originator to some form of intelligence in nature. Which makes it a strawman of an argument.
Evolutionauts cannot explain the invention, design, and assembly of any bio-system, such as heart/lung/vessel/blood/controller system, so again they are in the same boat as the people who they describe with this “divine fallacy”. The only difference in their “divine fallacy” is they say the “maker” is natural selection, and/or random mutations, and/or millions of years. So here is what this quote should actually look like:
Divine Fallacy: a species of non sequitur reasoning which goes something like this: I can’t figure this out, so natural selection must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, natural selection did it. Or, I can’t think of any other explanation; therefore, natural selection did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, natural selection is behind it. This fallacy is also a variation of the mutations fallacy: I can’t figure this out, so mutations must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, mutations did it. Or, I can’t think of any other explanation; therefore, mutations did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, mutations are behind it. Another variation of the fallacy goes something like this: I can’t figure this out, so millions of years did it. This is just too weird; so, millions of years are behind it.
Evolutionauts have no idea, but when they are ragging on someone who thinks Goddidit with their divine fallacy argument, they are sticking their foot in a bucket of tar of their own making. And showing off their indoctrination so obviously and naively.
(19) You tell me “That’s not how evolution works” when you have no answer to a question I pose. Well, I had to add this one. It’s used so often by evolutionauts. A typical example would be when I say evolution can’t account for the invention of complex bio-systems. For example, on a sterile earth where no notion of what a pump existed, how did a heart/pump originate? How did it become invented? Of course, heart pumps were inventions, far more than ANY invention made by any human intelligence. There was no prior art for nature. Virtually every invention by man has prior art to go by; prior designs. Almost all inventions are improvements of prior inventions. And, since no evolutionaut can answer the invention problem, their typical answer is “That’s not how evolution works”. Well evolutionauts, please tell me how it does. I also want to know which human on earth has the power to say that a bio-electromechanical system that originated on a very hot sterile planet covered by only water, rocks, dirt, and chemicals, is not an invention. THAT has to be a very powerful person.
(20) The biggest reason that shows you are indoctrinated: You never ask questions of evolution. Never doubt any tenet. Never wonder if random mutations and natural selection et al is capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining all of nature’s incredible organs and bio-systems
Here is a vid I made on the last eight reasons:
The last person to know they have been indoctrinated is the indoctrinated person.
A person that is not indoctrinated:
(1) Would recognize that an intelligent person might look at the evidence shown by natural history and come up with a reasonable and rational conclusion that doesn’t match theirs.
(2) Would be able to intelligently and calmly discuss the good and the bad evidence for evolution. “This is why I think evolution might be wrong, but I still choose evolution as the best idea we have so far”, would show an open mind and a non-indoctrinated person.
(3) Would recognize that this is an incredibly fascinating subject, and would recognize that they could learn by open discourse with other people who are also interested in this subject, no matter what their view. Even religious creationists have a lot of very interesting facts and opinions on this subject, once the religio-Biblical part is subtracted.
(4) Makes an honest effort at answering challenges I pose without resorting to dogma that has been memorized from some class or book. And if the answer is challenged, it can be discussed openly and honestly.
(5) Doesn’t need to refer me to a paper, video, or book. Is familiar enough with the information to relay it himself.
(6) I pose an astounding fact that takes a good deal of thinking to try to fit that fact into the origin of species and nature. Your response is to really think out and discuss the fact and above all show a desire to really dig down and understand our beginnings rather than be insulted that the fact is not good for your belief system: evolution.
So when I say you are indoctrinated, it is not a put-down. It is a fact. I know. As I said, I was indoctrinated as well. If you don’t want to appear indoctrinated, answer the question posed. Use your own thinking. Don’t rely on what someone else told you. They don’t know any more than you do about how bio-systems, intelligence, consciousness, vision, and all of the incredible systems of nature formed. No person who ever lived on the planet earth has those answers. I haven’t found any open-minded non-indoctrinated evolutionauts yet. I still have hope.
Evolution: An Objective Look 
Decepticondo said,
July 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Somebody took the liberty of linking your latest piece of BS onto the Rational Skepticism forum for everyone’s amusement. Good luck trying to debunk the evil “evolutionauts” with their evil biological data and educations that aren’t made up.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-240.html
stevebee92653 said,
July 28, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Thanks for the heads up. Fun read. The amusement was mine. You mean more rambling ragging? Hard to believe they could keep on keepin’ on with their rants and ad homs. Don’t they get bored all being in the same choir? Guess not.
eddie.zdi said,
July 28, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Hi… just a few quick points I wish to raise. Where you use the word indoctrinated could you not also use the word ‘convinced’. I mean if I asked a room full of people if the sky was blue and half said no, then a week later I had convinced that half that they were wrong, no-one would call that indoctrination. Second I don’t think you fully understand the concept of evolution, as you state “I began thinking and having doubts about the notion that an entity with absolutely zero intelligence could put together all of the incredible bio-systems of nature.” I would merely point out that no intelligence is required as the theory doesn’t state a design was intended, I mean I have arms but I’m pretty certain I didn’t make a conscious effort to grow them
stevebee92653 said,
July 28, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Eddie, pretty sad comment. Your arm thing means you have no idea what I am about. Sorry. And saying I don’t “understand” evolution is way overused by your co-believers and beyond trite. Used to attack every evo-challenge posed. Try actually reading and thinking about what you read.
Henrik Jensen said,
August 6, 2010 at 11:18 pm
To begin with i want to apologise for if what i write can be taken as insuling to your belief system or your person. Written word always seems harsher than when spoken and though I have tried to keep to the point, well argumented and non agressive I may not have succeded – the responses to my post will show that. And on that note i begin my argument.
I for one agree with eddie.zdi. Convinced is a better word than endoctrinated for what you are describing.
And calling him “beyond trite” as an argument is not a very compelling argument against his post. In my optics he hits the nail dead on – clearly you don’t understand the underlying concept of evolution and the only defence you can come up with is calling him trite. It goes against your own standards stated above where you say that a non indoctrinated person “Would be able to intelligently and calmly discuss the good and the bad evidence for evolution”. Is it too much to ask for that you yourself give a fair reply to an entirely sensible and reasonable objection to your reasoning? Is it to much to ask that you follow your own codex???
We have a danish saying – I don’t know if it exists in English also: If having standards is good, then having double standards is twice as good.
And i agree with Eddie on his other point as well. If you can say about evolution that “the notion that an entity with absolutely zero intelligence could put together all of the incredible bio-systems of nature” then you have clearly misunderstood the concept. That is evolution backwards…
Evolution is not an entity and it doesn’t have or need inteligence for it to work.
And if you find the statement “you don’t understand evolution” to be “overused” as you say, then please try to think why this might be the case. In the face of a twisted argument most people will automaticly say something like “that is rediculous – you don’t even understand the basic facts”. If you had said something like “the earth is flat” you would also be told that you had the facts wrong time and time again.
And arguing that you are inteligent or that you used to believe in evolution doesn’t realy give you any points either. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution from laboratory experiments, fossil records, computer models, genetic mapping, breeding programs on household animals and crops and of course the visual and physiological observations that gave Darwin his idea in the first place.
AND and this might be the strongest point – when Darwin wrote his book he had a good compelling case. And as more and more new ways of investigating his theory becomes available the all support it. THAT is how science works. No matter how many new ways of testing the theory science comes up with it always support evolution. THAT is why belief in it is NOT indoctrination.
So even of there is a minor gap or two in some of the fossil records the case is still pretty strong. And even if there may still be things we haven’t explained fully (yet) it realy leaves pretty little room for inteligent design or any any other pseudo science theory. It will no doubt be proven right in the future.
The problem is that ID-believers always take it one step further. You ask us to explain how the eye could evolve and we do. And then you say: “but how did the muscular control of the eye evolve?”. And if we don’t have an answer ready then you say – then it’s design. And when we explain the new question you com up with a new one. That is not how science is done i am sorry to say.
If you realy want to disprove evolution you can’t di it on a case to case basis. What you don’t realize is that in order to disprove evolution you have to disprove that the the fundamentals behind it works – not just muddle arround in the details.
If for instance you could find compelling evidence that nature on an overall basis did not favor the fittest by natural selection. Or if you could show us that genes could not be used to support how we think evolution evolved. Or if you could show is that what layer of earth a fossil was found in did in fact not show how old it was. Or if you could please point out why the isotope clocks are wrong… THEN we might reconsider our perspective on all the other evidence that is piling up – and maybe we will find our theory lacking.
Untill this is done please stop spreding misinformation. And if you still want to disprove evolution i have now given you a place to begin – good luck.
stevebee92653 said,
August 7, 2010 at 1:12 am
(1) I should say “convinced” when I mean “indoctrinated”? I DO mean indoctrinated and that description sticks. Convinced people don’t communicate like indoctrinates, and I describe why very clearly.
(2) When I say “trite” I am describing very overused and tired arguments, which are typical of evolutionauts. And you. Saying I don’t “understand” evolution is absurd. Evo is not complex, and I was a fan for many years, and very well read on the subject. So that argument is TRITE as well as WRONG as can be. Can’t you be more original? Communicate from your head instead of using worn out over used defenses? Instead of actually thinking on your own and challenging my blog, you say “stevebee doesn’t understand evolution”. If you can’t see the absurdity, you should not comment.
(3) Overwhelming evidence? Sorry, but a horrible distortion. You have been fooled, and this blog is FULL of reasons why. You choose not to read any of it and STILL comment here, and to resort to the same boring stuff your evo-peers say. Which results in the same boring response from me. Try actually thinking on your own. You can’t, and won’t, which makes you an indoctrinate.
(4) You and “they” can’t come close to a plausible explanation of how the eye and vision were invented, designed, assembled, AKA evolved. Again they have fooled you.
(5) Your second to last paragraph shows how you have no idea what is on my blog, why you are indoctrinated and arguing from dogma. Read page 7 of this blog. You have no idea what my point and position is. Showing common ancestry is only one millionth of what evolution needs to prove to make it plausible. It needs to prove that an entity with zero intelligence can invent, design, assemble, and support incredible bio-systems. And since you have zero evidence that that is the case, your belief crashes horribly.
ADParker said,
July 29, 2010 at 5:16 am
Impressive isn’t it eddie.zdi (et al)?
If a million people independently point out that stevebee92653 doesn’t understand the theory of evolution, then OBVIOUSLY every single one of them must have been identically indoctrinated!
Because the alternative, that they might be onto something, each recognising the same signs of ignorance in his ramblings, is just too terrifying to even consider.
stevebee92653 said,
July 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Try reading the rules for comments on the first page. You are a bore. What if I find one million and one people that agree with me? Am I then right?
Autobotox said,
July 30, 2010 at 2:49 am
“Try reading the rules for comments on the first page. You are a bore.”
All their doing is pointing out your painfully flawed reasoning and you haven’t corrected a single one of your statements and assertions since you started this ridiculous blog. What’s the point in following your rules if you’re not even going to live up to them yourself?
“What if I find one million and one people that agree with me? Am I then right?”
Most definitely NOT. A thousand years ago most people still believed the world was flat but did that make it true? The ancient Greeks knew it was round and had a pretty accurate way to measure its circumference.
During the time of Galileo most uneducated people, especially the church, still believed the Earth was the center of the universe but did that make it so? If you think yes, don’t bother talking or you’ll forget how to breath, and I don’t care if you find this demeaning.
The same goes for biology and taxonomy where animal physiological and genetic data is incapable of lying to the scientists who work in this field. Humans are presently classified as a subset of great ape primates and it’s been this way since the 1700s with no objective evidence discovered since then to say otherwise. Do you think that we as a species are classified that way because it’s popular with the general public? I DON’T THINK SO because creationauts and other religious nut-nicks typically go ballistic at the notion of even being classified as animals, let alone apes.
Autobotox said,
August 3, 2010 at 4:36 pm
“A person that is not indoctrinated:”
Okay, this is just flat-out pathetic.
Numbers 1 2 3 and 6 are just rehashings of the exact same creationist tactic of accusing evolutionists of only picking whatever evidence suits their interests. This assumption has been proven countless times to be utterly false because not a single reputable biologist agrees with it, and because it’s actually the evidence evaluation model used by nut-nick organizations like Answer in Genesis.
4 and 5 are both restatements of you accusing academics of not being able to think for themselves when they refer to peer-reviewed papers that were written by people who are clearly more qualified than them on the subject-matter.
Here’s how it works little Stevie. Smart people know their own limitations, feel no shame in admitting this, and place their trust in people with far more experience. Fools(you) on the other hand pretend that they know everything, then rush in and use their inflated self-worth as grounds to dismiss whatever they don’t agree with.
If you don’t agree with someone’s references, you’re going to have to do a LOT more than just dismiss it as “dogma” from “indoctrinated” people if you want your arguments to have an validity.
stevebee92653 said,
August 3, 2010 at 6:40 pm
No accusations. That’s what evos do. Pick and choose their “evidence”. I have an analysis of your wonderful “peer reviewed papers” on page 5 and 5a. Feel free to give them an objective read. I know you can’t but give it a try anyway.
“Know their limitations” = have forfeited their ability to reason and think skeptically and critically, so will believe anything. That’s just indoctrination, and what it does to people and it did it to you.
Autobotox said,
August 5, 2010 at 3:07 am
“No accusations. That’s what evos do. Pick and choose their “evidence”.”
This would be your standard restatement of your previous posts. When you can’t prove that biologists choose their evidence, all you can do is repeat the same claim over and over as if somehow that will make it valid. This is what’s known as a tautology and it’s easy to shoot down because once it’s identified as such it becomes worthless as an argument.
“I have an analysis of your wonderful “peer reviewed papers” on page 5 and 5a. Feel free to give them an objective read. I know you can’t but give it a try anyway.”
There isn’t really anything in those papers that’s really debatable and throwing in tons of baseless commentary like “I don’t agree so it must be false” doesn’t do anything to make them any less valid. If anything, all it does is serve as a distraction, and an annoying and pointless distraction at that.
““Know their limitations” = have forfeited their ability to reason and think skeptically and critically, so will believe anything. That’s just indoctrination, and what it does to people and it did it to you.”
I don’t see how looking to highly credible people with far more years of experience in biology and other sciences counts as a sign of “indoctrination”. This level of irrationality is simply beyond words.
This statement is also another tautological restating of 4 and 5 that I pointed out before so it’ll be totally pointless for you to use it again in any future rebuttals.
stevebee92653 said,
August 5, 2010 at 4:12 am
I show all over this blog how evo-scientists pick, bend, modify evidence to fit the theory. You choose to ignore or blind yourself.
Nothing in those papers that’s debatable? Of course I knew that would be your answer. Nothing of substance in your writing. Just “there isn’t ANYTHING……” How boring. None of you can get your teeth into any discussion. You are edentulous debaters. Hard to defend a house of cards. Right? Annoying? No one is forcing you to read here. Your non-answers are annoying and typical.
Henrik Jensen said,
August 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm
@ Stevebee – my response to your reply
Wow, that is so mature – to lock the thread to keep me from answering when you flame me.
What anoyed me enough to make my first post to begin with, is that you start of with all these nice statements about how mature you are in your blog and how you expect a sober dialogue – and then resort to name calling when you have to ansver a critical question. And that was the main point I was trying to make in my post.
I actually feel I am entiteled to say that you don’t understand evolution when you can describe it as “the notion that an entity with absolutely zero intelligence could put together all of the incredible bio-systems of nature” . The whole point about evolution is that it is NOT an entity and that it DOESN’T require any directing inteligence to do what it does. The sentence IS wrong, it DOESN’T make sense evolution-wise to be talking about entities. And it DOES so show how you have misunderstood the fundamental cornerstones in evolution.
And calling eddie trite doesn’t actually prove him wrong in any way. What it proves is that you have run out of constructive arguments. And I would in fact go as far as to say that it shows just how indoctrinated you are by religion.
And you complain that I have not read everything on your homepage – but I don’t see how that has anything to do with me commenting on how you treat people who make resonable counter arguments to your case. Because what I was realy objecting to was the unresonable way you deal with criticism.
So here is a list of invalid and imature counter-arguments in a debate for further reference:
Saying “I am smarter than you and therefore i am right”
– this is not an argument and as a statement it proves that the opposite is true
Saying “I understand something, so you are wrong when you say that I don’t”
– you have show you understand something if you want us to believe you, just saying you do is an empty statement
Saying “you are trite because I dont want to come with a real counter argument”
– namecalling is not an argument for anything since kindergarden
Saying “I used to believe in something but I got wiser”
– changing opinion doesn’t prove you right in any way
Saying “this and this is so typical for evolutionists”
– stereotyping people for pointing out that you make the same mistake again and again doesn’t realy prove anything… and might I ad that it is very typical for ID-believers to do that 😉
Anyway I tried to open a constructive debate. And to say in a nice and explanative way that your way of answering peoples constructive counter arguments is not very mature and doesn’t live up to your own codex stated above.
stevebee92653 said,
August 7, 2010 at 4:57 pm
What name did I call you? I don’t call people names.
You have zero critical questions.
Trite is not a name. Trite means overused dialogue. Obvious you are not 100% with the English language.
I am not religious. Read the blog before making yourself look foolish. I wrote it to give people information about myself and my stance.
Try reading the blog or at least some of it before coming here and looking foolish because you are too lazy to actually read.
stevebee92653 said,
August 9, 2010 at 7:27 am
Read the rules for commenting on this blog at the bottom of page 1. You are just repeating old stuff that I already left on from others. Trite. Sorry. I have whole pages on ID and the Kitzmiller/Dover trial. So read them if you want to comment, and then try saying something intelligent.
Unicron said,
August 24, 2010 at 3:56 am
CadMan2300 on the Rational Skepticism forum took the liberty linking the video rendition of this article so the others could watch and rip it a new one.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-320.html
The forum works great for him because a certain jackass blocked him from commenting on any of your youtube videos.
He had this to say about the part with the space shuttle.
“A toddler is extremely unlikely to even know what a space shuttle is, let alone how it came into being. Context-wise Stevie is basically saying that all “evolutionauts” are like little kids who’ll never know the truth about anything until they’ve grown up. It’s probably the single most condescending Straw-Man I’ve ever seen him use.”
The whole point with the shuttle and toddlers is really just a rehashing of the 747 argument that’s been debunked so many times that no computer can even count that high. They think that your version is far more pathetic.
Now comes the real issue. Are you just going to stay here and wallow in your own blog, or are you going to get over to the RS forum and defend your claims no matter how many times they’re proven false?
The choice is yours.
stevebee92653 said,
August 24, 2010 at 4:40 am
Oh I spend lots of time over there…as time allows. I am on at least two threads there with 20 commenters each on the prowl. I think 20 to 1 against me is unfair to the 20. I hate taking advantage. What do you think?
Unicron said,
August 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
I think you’re too scientifically illiterate to really pose a danger to an established backbone to modern biology, and your “indoctrination” excuse hasn’t really done anything. This particular article is ill-conceived because you have to come up with a series of excuses just defend one that’s totally ineffective.
Maybe you should try something different and actually address the subject matter instead of leveling some baseless nonsense about evolution being a religion. Name-calling your opponent is no way to have an honest debate.
Remember this critical rule of logic:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The claim that evolution is a dogmatic religion is an extraordinary claim, therefore it requires a considerable amount of evidence. Unsubstantiated assertions simply cannot qualify as such.
stevebee92653 said,
August 25, 2010 at 1:05 am
This is always such a fun one.
Prophet: Darwin
Religious book: Origin of Species (Guesses at the origin of entities that he had no actual idea about. Just like the Bible.)
Disciples: Dawkins, PZ, Eugenie, Ken
Followers: Revere and believe in Dawkins, PZ, Eugenie, Ken;
Followers: believe in miracles. Invention of vision, heart/lung/blood/blood vessel systems from a sterile earth. Or single cells, either way.
Followers use the word “we” frequently which cult members also frequently use. “We think”….”Can we trust stevebee?” We We We
Followers NEVER wonder or question evo-dogma. Support nears 100%
How is that for a start.
Unicron said,
August 25, 2010 at 4:07 am
This is always such a fun one.
Prophet: Darwin
“Religious book: Origin of Species (Guesses at the origin of entities that he had no actual idea about. Just like the Bible.)”
Poor Comparison: On the Origin is based on observational and recorded data that Darwin had already been working on over a decade after his trip on board the HMS Beagle. The Bible, most likely the Christian Bible, isn’t even historically verifiable.
“Disciples: Dawkins, PZ, Eugenie, Ken
Followers: Revere and believe in Dawkins, PZ, Eugenie, Ken;”
Legitimate scientists with credible backgrounds that are frequently targeted in cheesy Ad Hominem attacks, and if you don’t know, an Ad Hom is a type of Red Herring fallacy that addresses nothing and proves/disproves nothing. You also fail to explain how they qualify as disciples of anything, especially since Dawkins is an atheist.
This could also be dismissed as a non sequitur because first you call them disciples, then call them followers for believing in themselves. It just doesn’t add up.
“Followers: believe in miracles. Invention of vision, heart/lung/blood/blood vessel systems from a sterile earth. Or single cells, either way.”
Natural science doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations nor does it allow for the petty cop-out that you’re suggesting. You’re also insisting that these things all came about at once which is utterly false. Incremental baby-steps through decent with modification have been suggested as an alternative to these systems being invented the way you describe them, and you keep rejecting this reality no matter how much it’s rubbed in your face.
“Followers use the word “we” frequently which cult members also frequently use. “We think”….”Can we trust stevebee?” We We We”
It’s called Scientific Consensus and it seems to be a concept that you have an EXTREMELY hard time grasping. In order for a claim to be valid it has to be independently tested by many groups for accuracy. These groups coming to the same conclusion is NOT group-think. It’s peer review. It’s REAL science.
“Followers NEVER wonder or question evo-dogma. Support nears 100%”
The evidence for evolution has come a LONG way since Darwin made his publication in 1859. Granted, the fossil record was quite poor in his time but with the countless finds made since then, saying that there are no transitional fossils shows either a staggering lack of awareness or a bizarre unwillingness to study up on it. To say that all the fossils show no signs of change is invalid because the claim is made with no consideration of comparative anatomy or the fossil’s sequential order in the geological strata.
Then there’s the genetic record which was unavailable in Darwin’s time but has now become crucial. Now the record has gotten to the point where even if no transitional fossils were found, there would still be evidence.
Evolutionary biologists question the theory all the time, BUT the debates they have are over certain mechanisms that guide genetic drift and natural selection, NOT on the overall theory itself.
“How is that for a start.”
It wasn’t even a drop in the bucket. Certainly not the kind of claims that would work in a court of law, much less a peer-review board.
stevebee92653 said,
August 25, 2010 at 4:27 am
You don’t have a lick of skepticism, which makes you an indoctrinate. You are 100% sure and a believer and acceptor. You spout dogma and never question. Shame that you lost it.
Unicron said,
August 26, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I lack skepticism because I’ve been presented with good hard evidence from people who are willing to put their claims under intense scrutiny. You on the other hand haven’t presented anything other than empty assertions and straw-man misrepresentations.
stevebee92653 said,
August 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I am glad you admit to losing your skepticism. That is the tragedy of evolution. It removes your ability to reason.
stevebee92653 said,
August 25, 2010 at 5:23 pm
The bottom line is evolution is a fake science made up of followers, leaders, worshipers, a holy book, who don’t have any idea how nature was invented, designed, assembled, and sustained. Like the sculpture trying to figure out how it was sculpted. The chance is the same that the sculpture will figure it out as it is humans will. Evolution is just another group of people who have no idea but pretend they do, like any religion, and are able to fool people like you into believing they do. Every religion is here because each also represents an attempt at figuring it out as well. We are all equal. None of us can. Not one. Not you, not me.
Unicron said,
August 26, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“The bottom line is evolution is a fake science made up of followers, leaders, worshipers, a holy book, who don’t have any idea how nature was invented, designed, assembled, and sustained.”
Baseless claim with absolutely no evidential support. Hardly even worth debating.
“Like the sculpture trying to figure out how it was sculpted. The chance is the same that the sculpture will figure it out as it is humans will.”
Non-Sequitur: A sculpture is an inanimate object Stevie.
“Evolution is just another group of people who have no idea but pretend they do, like any religion, and are able to fool people like you into believing they do.”
Tautological repeat of your first sentence. It’s not even worth addressing.
“Every religion is here because each also represents an attempt at figuring it out as well.”
All religions require the implication of something supernatural and untestable. Allele frequency change over successive generations is NOT supernatural.
“We are all equal. None of us can. Not one. Not you, not me.”
If no one knows the answer right now, why are you so insistent that no one ever will? When did go-nowhere laziness become part of the scientific method?
stevebee92653 said,
August 26, 2010 at 4:32 pm
And you think that “nothing” can invent, design, assemble, and sustain all of nature? Your “allele frequency changes” sure as hell can’t. So why do you believe they did? For no other reason than someone told you they did. Which makes you no different than any religious believer. Oh, and I forgot to add: your god/trinity is time+mutations+natural selection. The only difference between your belief and religion is you don’t talk to your god.
Unicron said,
August 27, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“I am glad you admit to losing your skepticism. That is the tragedy of evolution. It removes your ability to reason.”
Apparently, your obsession with trying to debunk it has taken away your ability to think critically about what you say before you say it, or fully understand where your critics are coming from.
An important rule of logic is that it’s not a matter of what you believe. It’s a matter of WHY you believe it. You want to prove once and for all that evolution is pure poppycock, well, the whole world is watching and the burden of proof is all on you.
“And you think that “nothing” can invent, design, assemble, and sustain all of nature? Your “allele frequency changes” sure as hell can’t.”
Of course not. Genetic drift and natural selection simply improve on what is already there. They don’t “invent, design” or “assemble” anything because there is no ultimate goal that’s set in stone.
The idea that there needs to be an ultimate goal lead by a supernatural agent is YOUR vision of nature, not evolution’s.
“So why do you believe they did? For no other reason than someone told you they did. Which makes you no different than any religious believer. Oh, and I forgot to add: your god/trinity is time+mutations+natural selection. The only difference between your belief and religion is you don’t talk to your god.”
Oh give the whole “evolution = religion” BS a rest already. You either want to have an honest and open debate or you just want to play pretend-scientist for the rest of your life. The choice is yours and you’re welcome on the Rational Skepticism forum under the condition that you stop making these crazy and unsubstantiated assertions.
stevebee92653 said,
August 27, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Re: “They don’t “invent, design” or “assemble” anything because there is no ultimate goal that’s set in stone.”
So evolution was not the originator/assembler of organs and bio-systems? It just improves them? So, what was the original source of vision, hearing, bat sonar, heart/lung systems? I can’t wait to hear.
YOU asked about the evolution=religions thing. I answered. You are in a religious group that worships mutations/natural selection as a super powerful entity that can form all of nature. The evidence for that is just as invisible as Biblical evidence is. You are in a cult and you simply don’t know it. The only difference is you don’t talk to your god.
I have tons of information on this blog and my vids about why evo is bullshit. Notice how you completely avoid any mention of the ANY of the challenges I pose? As if they don’t exist. Typical though. You can’t face facts, so you do the personal rag thing and repeat dogma that you MUST know I know. “Genetic drift and natural selection simply improve on what is already there.” ‘Scuse me while I get my barf bucket.
ADParker said,
August 28, 2010 at 1:45 am
“You are in a religious group that worships mutations/natural selection as a super powerful entity that can form all of nature. The evidence for that is just as invisible as Biblical evidence is. You are in a cult and you simply don’t know it. The only difference is you don’t talk to your god.”
Well you know, that (except not really of course) and the simple fact that mutations and natural selection (and genetic drift etc.) have been directly observed, are objective facts.
I would suggest you read the book I am currently reading for some basic insight into the evidence for evolution: “Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True” but you aren’t really interested in anything that challenges your preconceptions are you? And would dismiss it out of hand without a thought.
stevebee92653 said,
August 28, 2010 at 2:22 am
Re. NS and RM “directly observed happening and are facts”. Sure but never observed building anything. Except in your group imaginations.
Why should I read a book whose title I agree with? I have read most of the major pro-ev books, and look what it did. Made me an evo-denier!
stevebee92653 said,
August 28, 2010 at 2:37 am
You just repeat the same thing over and over . Unicorny right, stevebee wrong. Unicorny believes everything he is supposed to believe, and is a good evolutionaut.
Re: “You’ve been told repeatedly that organs started off as simple glands that were built up upon through slight additions with successive generations.”
Your problem is you think since you have been “told” and you believe, that I should as well. Sorry, I don’t just believe what someone tells me. I question. Unlike you, who has admittedly lost your skepticism, sadly. Also, how did those “simple glands” come about? Who invented those, since you say evolution didn’t? Gawd?
My cousin?
stevebee92653 said,
August 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Unicorny
You need to:
(1) Read 1a on this blog before commenting again. You are a bore, uni-dimensional, and repetitive
(2) Try actually reading the blog before commenting again. I have a page on evidence FOR evolution that you have no idea about. You may look more intelligent.
(3) I love how you and our friends at RS “quote mine” me, then you complain that I am quote mining Dawkins. 😀 😀 Every time any denier quotes an evolutionaut it’s “quote mining”. BOO HOO BTW There is no way to review a book without QUOTING the author. What a silly notion on your part.
If you have something intelligent to say, it will post. Otherwise, don’t waste your time and my space.
stevebee92653 said,
August 31, 2010 at 5:45 am
Again you show your lack of thought. Try reading my first page, THEN comment. Arguing religion here is a GIANT strawman. I got into it with AronRA and and as soon as he was eating it be blocked me. I don’t blame him.
stevebee92653 said,
August 31, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I didn’t delete you. You didn’t follow the rules of this site, so you didn’t post. Follow the rules, (1b) and you will. Show some intelligence, something at least a little interesting. (Which I am not too concerned about. I don’t see you having the capability.) I have acres of personal attacks here which I have allowed to post, but repetitive comments are a snore. Funny how you are not too concerned about AronRa completely blocking me, a complete censorship. I read your interesting comments and respond. So you are not blocked.
stevebee92653 said,
October 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Adrian: Repetitive. Copy/paste comment. Said before fifty times on this blog. And bullshit. Good science says a failed theory needs to be exposed. And a new one isn’t the least bit necessary.
Skip said,
December 19, 2010 at 6:27 am
Here’s another way to know that someone has been indoctrinated: they think that just because a paper has been published on some issue in evolution, then that issue has been totally solved. Or they think that just because a little bit of progress has been made on something, it poses no problem for evolutionary theory.
stevebee92653 said,
December 19, 2010 at 8:40 am
Roger that. You are right on.
Skip said,
December 23, 2010 at 1:18 am
Here’s another one: when they insist that someone who has a problem with evolution is really a religious creationist when he claims not to be. They will insist that the guy who’s skeptical about evolution is lying.
stevebee92653 said,
December 23, 2010 at 2:07 am
Ain’t that the truth! They’re programmed for that one.
Darryl Householder said,
December 31, 2010 at 5:44 am
Steve,
I posted some of your text on Indoctrination on a Facebook discussion group and gave them a link to your site (I hope that was OK).
http://www.facebook.com/darryl.householder#!/darryl.householder/posts/10150164019869129
I started the post with this comment …
Are you indoctrinated?
Is this true? In our schools and Universities, students are being taught “what to think”, not “how to think”!
They don’t know how to problem solve. Common sense is thrown out the door. They are just taught what to think… … teach to the test …take the calculator away and the can’t add or subtract .
Anyway here are some of the comments I received … I thought I would pass them on so you could have a good laugh.
Andy Morrison change a few words around replace evolution with god, and well done darryl, you have described yourself!
Driama Ainer “In our schools and Universities, students are being taught “what to think”, not “how to think”!”
-i know that’s not the case at my uni. perhaps its like that in america, and perhaps that’s why you have a “controversy” with creationism over there?
Darryl Householder Schools need to teach everything … both sides of the arguments … where you land is your business. But if you don’t have all of the evidence, then how are you making a decision? If they are afraid to put out both positions, maybe theirs is so weak that it can’t stand comparison. “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
Ben Christensen Well let’s see…evolution was taught in biology and in geology as well…I also learned about ID and creationism in my religion courses…so ya – all bases covered.
Darryl Householder
@Ben,
You just made my point … thank you!
Let’s see … you learned about “only” evolution in your biology and geology classes. Why didn’t they present the facts of intelligent design and encourage the analysis of both sides of the argumen…t.
And in the religion courses, did they discuss evolution?
Both are wrong if that is the case. Again, if you don’t have all of the evidence, then how are you making a decision?
What were the test answers focused on? What your were told to think? Or as it should be … how to think?
If your school/university is presenting both arguments (which are real world positions by scientists/theologians), then it is doing a good job. It is unbiasedly presenting the evidence and letting you make the decision … letting you investigate the questions that come up in your mind … otherwise, it is just indoctrination … pure and simple!
Ben Christensen
The school is presenting both…evolution is part of science and hence is taught in the science courses…creationism (all forms, not just yours) and intelligent design are taught in religion courses as they are…huh, religious ideas. You…’re asking to teach philosophy during american history and poetry in math…the subjects are different and therefor taught in different classes.
As for the list: it’s terrible, here’s why:
on the ‘you’re not indoctrinated’ list this is number five:
“Doesn’t need to refer me to a paper, video, or book.”
If you are quoting science you do need, because odds are you have not done the direct research yourself…no one could indeed perform all the research necessary to never cite anything. Hence if you aren’t citing something you better have a really good explanation of how you bypassed all that research.
His list actually boiled down to
You’re indoctrinated if:
1) you disagree with me
Ben Christensen
technically ID is a scientific hypothesis…but not the issue.
As for evolution not being scientific…it’s based on observation…there are observations that would prove it false…there are also experiments for it. So it appears to fit th…e definition just fine.
I don’t lump ID with religion in order to not deal with it. It started as a religious idea, and though Dennis and others are trying to re-develop it I am not convinced it still holds it’s religious beliefs, and neither is much of the scientific community right now. It could be in the future this may change, perhaps enough will come of ID that it will convincingly be a legitimate scientific hypothesis. But currently I have yet to be convinced of this. Dennis and I have had discussion on this in the past.
I could care less about the author of this list. You posted it here – I’d much rather discuss it with you. If you don’t want to discuss it…say so…or don’t post it.
Darryl Householder
@Ben,
Why are you so afraid of examining the evidence given from someone who used to believe as you do, and also is a professional scientist?
And sure, there are people who have turned from Christianity … some may have turned because of s…cience, some may have turned because being a Christian was too constricting for their life style, some may have been influenced by the company they kept. And maybe, just maybe they weren’t really Christians to begin with.
But we are not talking about that … we are talking about a former evolutionist(s) testimony of why they now believe evolution (not micro-evolution) to be false.
I am not going to comment further on this thread because we are just beating a dead horse here.
You will do what you want to do or believe what you want to believe no matter what I say. In fact our discussions always lead to a dead end and that is too bad, but it is reality.
So good luck with your life. I hope you have or will find the life you are seeking.
Good bye!
Driama Ainer ”without bias or presuppositions to any worldview? ”
-it teaches science without bias or presuppositions
“What university did you attend and what were the specifics of the above that they presented ”
-monash uni, bachelor of science.
Ben Christensen
It was evidence you told me to examine…it was a list about indoctrination…most of which is him complaining about being shown scientific research…if you wanted to talk about his work ion evolution you should have referred me to that.
I …don’t see a dead horse yet. But feel free to run away yet again.
Steve …
That last comment was laughable … “It was a list about indoctrination…most of which is him complaining about being shown scientific research.”
stevebee92653 said,
December 31, 2010 at 7:01 am
Right. Interesting. thanks for the read. It’s a universal discussion. The same everywhere I go. Very different than I thought it would be when I first started doing this stuff. Actually more fascinating in a way. Amazing how people can get so wired they are unable to see outside their belief system.
I have been “discussing” on a site (rationalskepticism.org). I ask a a question. They can’t answer, then they give me some absurd “answer” that has nothing to do with the question I posed. I then let them know. Then all hell breaks loose. “I moved the goalposts”. Then, recycle the whole thing all over again. After abut five cycles, I need either a break or to be done with them. Some of the discussion is here on p.23. It’s so astounding that these people actually think they know how all of nature formed. Astounding. And all it is is NS and RMI No doubt whatsoever. Can you imagine actually thinking that?
Fine that you copied my stuff over there. That’s what it’s for. The more that read it, the more thinking…..which is the idea.