Have people been indoctrinated to accept evolution?

[Daken]

Feel free to reject the unifying theory of biology. The theory upon which modern medicine relies. That is your right, just as it is my right to lack any respect for you.

[Are You Sure?]

Nope.
You don't need indoctrination when you have evidence.

[Fred]

Quite the opposite - no one is going to hell for not believing in evolution.

[Steven]

Indoctrinated? Hardly. It's just the preponderance of evidence in support.

[Social Philosopher]

I think you are guilty of a common Christian trait. That is not thinking something through to it's logical conclusion or position. Consider, it is not necessary to indoctrinate anyone to accept something for which there is positive and irrefutable evidence. It is only necessary for this to occur in the case of something like supernatural creation for which there is no evidence.

[Angel Bells]

Me thinks they protest too much ...

Do they even know what indoctrination is , when they are ?

[288]

People are indoctrinated in a religion, usually from childhood, to accept it by faith. Its followers are admonished to disregard or to explain away any evidence that contradicts it.

Evolution is not a religion. It is natural process that does not need faith to accept it. One accepts it because of the evidence for it and because it continues to have new evidence found in support of it.

The followers of religion, because of their indoctrination, reject the evidence for evolution and accuse those who accept it of being indoctrinated.


Added

And, as @Annsan_In_Him shows, those who have been indoctrinated in religion resort to irrelevant and out-of- context quotes in their attempts to refute evolution.

Evolution most certainly COULD be falsified if, in fact, it were false.

As one of its proponents once said, all it would take to prove evolution false would be to find a fossil of a rabbit in Cambrian strata,

The point he was making is that if a fossil of any creature were to be found in geological strata that was formed before that creature could possibly have evolved, then evolution would be falsified.

By that test, evolution has been proved valid in EVERY study of the fossil record. Furthermore, evolution has passed every other test it has been subjected to.

That is why the promoters of creationism lie and resort to deceit and misrepresentation in their attempts to disprove evolution.

And those who have been indoctrinated in religion mindlessly believe what the promoters of creationism say.

Added

Then we have @mike vt who proves in spades what I said.

He parrots a bunch idiotic nonsense he found in some lying creationist web site. I will take just one example.

The laws of thermodynamics deal strictly with the dynamics of energy. (Thermo = heat.) So here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics stated.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but may change from one form to another.

The Second Law states that, in a closed system, there can be no net increase in available energy and that any process that occurs in a closed system will result in less available energy (the degree of the non-availability of energy in a system is called entropy).

Another way of looking at it is that any increase in order--or for that matter, any process occurring--in a closed system must be balanced out by a corresponding decrease in available energy. Since the earth is not a closed system, but gets its energy from the sun, any increase in entropy is balanced out.

What the Second Law prohibits is perpetual motion machines.

Here is the mathematical expression of the Second Law.

Delta Q <= T Delta S

Where Delta Q = the change in heat (change in available energy), T = temperature (stated as degrees above absolute zero), and Delta S = change in entropy (non-availability of energy).

@mike vt, please use that equation to show how evolution cannot be reconciled with the second law.

If you can't, you have proved that you are just spouting stupidities.

Since the laws of thermodynamics deal strictly with the dynamics of energy, evolution does not violate the Second Law. As long as energy is available to biological systems on the earth, evolution can occur, just as any other natural biological process can occur. If evolution violates the second law, then life itself must also violate that law for the same reason.

[Annsan_In_Him]

In Oxford Professor John Lennox’s book , Seven Days That Divide The World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science, he writes:
[quote] I think the most stunning example is Richard Lewontin of Harvard, the geneticist who says, 'Science itself does not compel us to look for material explanations. It doesn't. It's our a-priorian commitment to materialism that forces us to accept naturalistic explanations no matter how counter-intuitive they are...for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.'

99.9% of science doesn't raise these questions, [regarding God and science, atheism, theism, origins, etc.] It's only in a couple of areas these questions come up.

Why is evolution such a big deal? The problem is that evolution is the only area of science that I know where you can deduce most of it from philosophy w/o reference to data. You cannot deduce Newton's law or Einstein's equations from any philosophical viewpoint. But if you assume materialism or naturalism is true - that mass energy is all that exists and then you're asked, 'Please on that assumption, account for the existence of life’, you have to produce an evolutionary theory. [unquote]

The capacity for falsification is essential for any truly scientific theory. But Darwinism dictates that evolution is the only way that any living organism can acquire any characteristic, and none of its claims can be scientifically challenged [i.e. falsified]. Well, note what this Biologist said about that:

[quote] Our theory of evolution has become... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it [i.e. falsify it]. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. [unquote]

Therefore I would say that acceptance of evolution has been accomplished by all challenges to it being rubbished (as per some of the comments, not answers, here) because those rubbishing all challenges have been indoctrinated into accepting there can be no other explanation. AiH

[749]

If by indoctrinated you mean they have common sense

[mike vt]

usually when one has been indoctrinated one denies it as can be seen from the answers below, not me they say I am too smart to have someone indoctrinate me. well we have all been indoctrinated with something, it is what one does with it is what matters, can you sift through it and sort the truth from lies.

yes my parents indoctrinated me with truth and I am glad they did.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.

more below