How can evolution explain body symmetry?

What you claim is true of ID-ers is also true of many people who believe in IC/Hinduism/Christianity etc., to whit: "they have a deep emotional committment to it" Such an 'emotional committment' however cannot be employed as evidence against their belief without causing your own belief system to wobble (given that deep emotional commitment, in the form of frustration, that is apparent in your post).I'm a layman but not totally lay. I'm familiar enough with data to know that getting people to look at the data is not the key issue. It's getting people to interpret the data in the truest way possible and having them face the often unwelcome consequences of that interpretation. Scientists are people first and foremost and it's very difficult to get folk to intepret data 'honestly' when they likely have prior 'deep emotional commitment' to interpret it in within a limited boundary. Who can hold up their hand here and prove they aren't even a teeny weeny bit predisposed to view data with a particular slant?To say that the popular and scientific interest in ID is due to it being irreducibly complexly wrong is a bit of an over-simplification. It may be....but think about it for a sec. Here we have an orthodoxy (Evolution), one which is reasonably long in the tooth and supposedly "as accepted a fact as that the world is round" getting the potential equivilent of a Davidian stone planted right in the centre of it's Goliathian forehead. It's not that it's wrong - it's that it's NEWS !!News on many fronts: news for the man in the street for whom evolution has little more to say to him other than when he dies his destination is worm food and which provides entertaining natural history programmes. News too, for the scientifically inclined God believer who finally gets something other than a Bible to bash the 'opposition' with. And last but not least, a new frontier for scientists (who have historically trived on new frontiers) to get their testtubes into. Like, if Evolution is what happened, then 'all' the modern scientist can do is uncover more of her secrets. Not that the secrets couldn't have potential for vitality or usefulness - but not as brand new or as consequential as ID. Not in the same league at all, at all. ID not only offers the opportunity for the modern scientist to become a Newton, a Keppler and Einstein, the shoulders on which future scientists can stand, but more significantly, the potential to approach scientifically, the greatest issue of them all - Does (an as yet undefined) God exist? Compared to that, science aimed at evolution, which can only attempt to reveal the workings of a (as I understand it) finite natural universe is a bit of a damp squib.Anyway, is there not a touch of the kettle calling the pot black about your stance? Is not ID in the similar David vs Goliath position that Darwin/Huxley et al found themselves in when they stood up with a mind-blowing idea against the mammoth-like orthodoxy of their time. Did they have compelling, irrevocable science to back them up. Not at all. They had a theory and the self-conviction to fight for it against the tide. Did the lack of an iron-clad case in the face of orthodoxy then, mean that a subsequently much-spannered-on theory was wrong? Proponants of Blind Evolution then and now don't seem to think so...If you feel that an internet forum won't allow you to flex you biochemical muscles and if you feel that strongly about it ...why not do what Micheal Behe did. Publish or perish I believe it's called in your trade. I for one would buy the book ;o)

I'm not a scientist so there is little point in attempting to plough into this in a evidential way. What strikes however is the following conundrum. Or rather, apparent stalemate.ID is a view which appears to be held by people who, on the basis of education, intellect and experience should be in a position to evaluate evidence impartially. These people use their abilities and consider the data and come to particular conclusions about it. Other people who have similar base credentials examine the data and come to quite different conclusions about it. Opposing conclusion in fact.The existance of so much debate, ID/Evolution/YEC/OEC and God knows what else, leads me to suppose that it's not the raw data which provides the facts, its the interpretation of the raw data. Or in other words, facts are open to interpretation. And if that's the case, then facts are not absolute. The best that can be talked about is... likely. And if likely then someones got to decide how likely.And it turns out the people who say "99.99% sure", "FACT", "as certain a fact as that the earth is round", are the people who also happen to believe it to be true. Which comes first though: the chicken or the egg? The question arises in my mind: how does a modern day evolution-holding scientist, who had grown up on a diet of 100% Evolution, surrounded by the majority of his/her peers who have been similarily nourished, who cannot provide any particular scientific evidence as to why they stand above and beyond a universal human trait: the trait which makes most of us want to fit in with the crowd....how is it that they do the following? How does that scientist know for sure that they are examining the evidence impartially? Or rather, examining it free of pre-disposition?If disposition...and I really can't see how not.. then how much? and how much effect will that have on their interpretation. How would one even think of a way of factoring a corrector into the equations to compensate for it? There is no safety in the fact that a large number of scientists hold a particular view either. Have they not all been bitten by exactly the same pre-dispositionary bug?Wasn't it Einstein who factored a constant in to his science because he was repulsed by the idea of an expanding universe? Scientists aren't gods, they're just people. Can a closed group of people get it very badly wrong?

Possibly not much... but a little more that in yours I didn't notice the lack of content in Methalyses post (from were we've evolved) causing you a moments concern. Micro-evidence of pre-disposition in action mayhaps.

In amongst the bewildering (to me anyway) logic that was 'The Blind Watchmaker' I remember a little jewel of wisdom which went something like "An argument from incredulity is no argument". IOW, that you cannot believe something, has no bearing on whether it's true or not.A closed system is not made open by it being BIG. The Universe, if finite would be a closed system even though big. Very many, though not all, Germans came to believe, to varying degrees, in the tenets of National Socialism in the 1930's. Martin Luther demonstrated that a large,established and widely accepted orthodoxy could to a significant degree, be turned on its head. Scientists were people before they were scientists.That accuracy and self-correction follow from 'large' is something that would be interesting to see demonstrated as a sure-fire fact. Science has indeed the ability to self correct, but 'ability' is not the same as 'it is sure to happen'What are the mechanisms leading to 'group think'? Are not indoctrination, peer pressure, propoganda central elements in it. Is this not what athiestic evolution says happens in the schools when God or Creation is taught? Why not children watching Evolutionary natural history programmes be similarily indoctrinatedIf these words seems inflammatory, note that 'Darwins Black Box' did a index survey of popular college Science textbooks under the search word 'evolution' and demonstrated that not only did they have virtually nothing factual to say on the subject of Evolution - just the bald statement that Evolution was a fact as proven as the the world is round. They then proceeded to teach the science on that basis. Shades of indoctrination it seems to meSo I repeat the question. How does a scientist demonstrate that his science,is not being influenced, Einstein-like, by pre-disposition? If somone could demonstrate this, then there would be every reason to believe that others could too.And vice-versaThis message has been edited by iano, 07-28-2005 08:52 AM

About the same amount as Methylase from whence we came. If I'm out of order on this (newbie-itis) then I apologise and will bugger off somewhere else.Otherwise, the question posed in my last post kind of sums up my query.

Hi NosyNed (sometimes I wonder about the source material for peoples call signs!). The Scientific process was never designed. It has evolved over centuries. Major blunders (as well as major triumphs) throughout mean that for all the evidence, Evolution could be a major blunder. That's a 'could be'...now for an 'is'There exists a mass of evidence to indicate that indoctrination has occured: folk are told Evolution is a fact for from their formative years upwards, long before they have been equipped (if ever they truly could be) to establish the facts for themselves. Note: whether the indoctrination is ultimately true or false matters not. It's still indoctrination.I'm not attempting to question the whole scientific enterprise with the above. Only those areas where mass indoctrination can be shown to be more than assertion. If no neasurement has been made for the influence of such indoctrination on a science, then it is excellent Science to consider the whole of the science in question as suspect. Subjecting published papers to a rigorous critique, which takes no account of the effects that massive indoctrination may have had, is not science. Sorry I can't answer your actual question here as I am 'evidentially challenged' in this area ...but do allow me to mis-quote you for a second to make an observation. Maybe in going public, the ID-ers are taking a leaf out of Darwins book. It worked pretty well for him!! Think about it as a tactic. If ID-ers were to bypass the scientific community and go straight to public, they might happen to awaken the interest of a media who are interested in conflict and eager to make natural history programmes that would sell (as opposed to ones which were true). If indoctrination works (as I suggest it has) then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.As a tactic you'd have to admire it's brilliance - if not it's science.

By no means do I intend to reduce ID-ists work to the level of propaganda only and regret giving that impression. I strongly suspect that there is valid science at it's base but in truth, I'm not in a position to really know one way or the other. On the basis of concrete personal belief however, I'm inclined to think that ID has much going for it - as may well evolution, at some less absolute level.However, if your trying to establish a science and need to compete for the limited resources that must be available for research-leading-to-publication-leading-to-establishment then ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Quite a brilliant move - if that was the intention. Happens all the time I'm sure and I see nothing to get depressed about!OOTThought as much. I'm not sure exactly where this topic, which could be summed up as "Quantifying the effects of Evolutionary indoctrination on the processs of Scientific Evaluation" should find a home. It's hasn't much to do with ID - it's about Evolution...Anybody kind soul out there willing to help a somewhat bewildered newbie out as to best place for it?

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on you CK! 1805 posts and you'd stoop to attempt to deflect a bambi-like newbie with a trick like that. Not that I'd say your incorrect But that's another days work. Speaking of work...Admin describe this site as "Intellectual cocaine". (S)he wasn't kidding. Man, I'm getting feck all work done today.

I've no reason to think you are, but I'm really not in a position yet to evaluate either way. I'm not supporting ID-ers to the death incidently. I suspect their premise is right but that's because I'm a Christian and ID fits that premise pretty well - not because I've read around a bit of the science. My query here is indoctrination and how it's eliminated from the science of evolution. Let's put the idea of me as a ID-er away. Any comment on indoc.....aahhh... craaaaamp in my fiiiiiiingers... Ouch!

You couldn't flesh that out a little. Like, type a few more words. You make assumptions about my knowledge which, although flattering, shoot quite a ways higher than they should.