Posted: Aug 03, 2010 4:16 pm
by CADman2300
Stevebee thought it would be fun to update his blog article about "indoctrination" by listing traits that he thinks are the signs of someone who's not "indoctrinated".
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.

This is exactly how much of scientific observation is supposed to work but he's resorting to the creationaut tactic of accusing biologists of not living up to it and just cherry-picking what they agree with.

(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.

He fails to realize that most of arguments against evolution are based on painfully poor understandings of what it is and how it functions.

(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.

"religious creationists" are the ones who use flawed arguments with no factual support in the first place so why should their opinions be counted? Hmm . . .

(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.

He's been told repeatedly that challenges based on poor reasoning are simply not worth a hill of beans. Does he ever fix them or respond in a calm and rational manner? I think most of you know the answer by now.

(5) Doesn’t need to refer me to a paper, video, or book. Is familiar enough with the information to relay it himself.

Smart people know their own limits while fools think they know everything and then try to use their inflated self-worth as grounds to reject the arguments from people who are obviously more qualified. Stevebee never acknowledges this factor in any of his rebuttals and just resorts to his usual string of childish name-calling.

(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.

I think it's safe to assume that this guy doesn't even know what facts really are. A fact is a simple, or complex, unit of information that is verifiable and true beyond dispute and baseless assumptions that he posts on his blog simply cannot qualify as that.