34. 20 Reasons Why I Say You Are Indoctrinated
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. 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 college. 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 PHD 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 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 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 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, musculo-skeletel,….. The evo-responders are on auto pilot. 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 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 dumb 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 the 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, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he “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 mad on the first ten reasons:
(11) When you refer to your field of interest, or to your own thoughts and feelings regarding evolution, in this case, as as “WE”. “WE” think….” “How can WE trust stevebee….”"WE have evidence……” You have placed yourself into 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 “discusser” 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 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. 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 analysed no less than seven different population dynamic models, namely:
 The Ricker model;
 The Hassell model;
 The tent map model;
 The Beverton-Holt model;
 The Skellam model;
 The quadratic model;
 The theta-Ricker model.”
Throwing lists at questions is just a form of overwhelming the question with so much information, 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.
(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 (beyond a BS degree) and post education studies have gone far far beyond those of 90% of evolutionauts. The basis for evolution is the simplest of ALL “sciences”, one a 3rd grader could understand. Gradual 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 poorly designed? Bat sonar? Musculo-skeletel systems? Right. They may not be perfect in every way possible, but poorly designed? Sorry.
(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 to? 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 for 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 natures 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.