Evangelical war on evolution

[Zhavric]

Please see this video.

The strategy is clearly "indoctrinate them when they're young and don't know any better."

[phoenix_fire]

This kind of thing is not good for the kids, it's not good for science, and foremost it is not good for Christianity. They are not trying to get people to believe the Bible; they're trying to get people to believe their interpretation. This is problematic.

[shawmutt]

The best way for simplistic ideas to infiltrate society is to go for the kids. The logic used by these "teachers" can only work with small kids. I'm worried about my future kids going to school in this area, they'll be brought up as UUs in a world of Christian kids.

They are not trying to get people to believe the Bible; they're trying to get people to believe their interpretation. This is problematic.

I don't want to turn this into a general Christianity debate, but is there some way to "believe" the Bible that does not involve interpretation?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: shawmutt I don't want to turn this into a general Christianity debate, but is there some way to "believe" the Bible that does not involve interpretation?

There is no way to believe anything that doesn't involve interpretation.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: shawmutt The best way for simplistic ideas to infiltrate society is to go for the kids. The logic used by these "teachers" can only work with small kids. I'm worried about my future kids going to school in this area, they'll be brought up as UUs in a world of Christian kids. I don't want to turn this into a general Christianity debate, but is there some way to "believe" the Bible that does not involve interpretation?

Of course not. But I don't think they should just hand it to them either. Maybe it's the teacher in me coming out, but I rather think they should teach children to read the Bible and seek out its Truth themselves. Statements such as the ones these "teachers" make should be qualified. So many of the arguments they make are loosely if at all related to the Bible anyway, and my thought is that they're getting caught with their pants down scientifically. I do not think that faith and science are at odds with each other, but people like this create an artificial rift. And I don't think the kids are going to buy it for long.

[Fonceai]

@phoenix

The problem, though, is that the Bible often relies on interpretation, and many children don't possess the experiences in order to make the interpretive inferences.

They often ask adults for help and those adults don't teach the children how to interpret, they teach them their own interpretation.

I suggest that they should not expose children to religious scripture until the children have acquired enough experiences to compare the lessons of scripture with their own lives.

I know from personal experience that the Bible was very confusing for me until I was older and could relate Biblical lessons to events in my own life and how I handled them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Informed decisions are reliant on information being available that would allow it.

Religion is a subjective topic, that requires an immense wealth of information and knowledge to honestly say one does or does not ascribe to a religion.

I think it should be obvious, kids should be burdened with this, especially on public funds in schools.

Let them get life information, before forcing afterlife information (you can't verify) into their head......

Jeeeesh........

[Dirty Name]

"The strategy is clearly "indoctrinate them when they're young and don't know any better."

As if liberals haven't been using that strategy in the public schools.

Your "war" against evolution is justified. Darwinian theory is pseudo-science that is not supported anywhere in the fossil record.

The oft-cited "Miller-Urey Experiment" has been panned by contemporary science, and then there's the Darwiniac scientific community, though they've tried desperately for more than 50 years, they cannot create life in a laboratory, even if we generously spot them all of the basic building blocks of life.

Face it, the Darwinian "Theory of Evolution" is little more than an explanation of intraspecies adaptation. If that's all you want it to teach, fine. But please stop pretending it explains the Origins of Life, as most public school evolutionists try to teach.

[sdbest]

I wonder. How pervasive would religions be if children were not indoctrinated? If religious teaching was given an "R" rating so that only people over the age of 18 were permitted to see it. How many people would become religious?

Regards
S.

[Fonceai]

@Osborn

Sometimes it's hard to tell what you are trying to say.

Are you trying to say that you think religious education should wait until later?

[Osborn F Enready]

I am saying that respectable parents should recognize how complex a choice religion is, and set aside their "personal views" long enough to allow the children to have information to base their choice on. The choice being, to be relgious or not.

If you are a parent, and you force your child to go to religious schools, church and read specific texts as "routine", isn't it obvious you are indoctrinating and not informing?

If we respect our children, we should teach them first about life, and how to learn, weigh information and make informed choices. Then, we could honestly and without bias present religion for postulation, and pondering.

No, we don't need a law to tell us to do this.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Dirty Name As if liberals haven't been using that strategy in the public schools.

I see you have no problem defending propaganda with more porpaganda.

Your "war" against evolution is justified. Darwinian theory is pseudo-science that is not supported anywhere in the fossil record.

Wrong on several levels. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with evolution before you attack it. This link will help you on your journey. It explains about transitional fossils and why claiming evolution is "only a theory" is intellectually bankrupt.

If you want to debate the matter further, start your own thread. This one is meant to discuss the conservative Christian war against evolution.

The oft-cited "Miller-Urey Experiment" has been panned by contemporary science, and then there's the Darwiniac scientific community, though they've tried desperately for more than 50 years, they cannot create life in a laboratory, even if we generously spot them all of the basic building blocks of life.

The bolded section further evidences you haven't done your homework.

Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”

Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

Misconceptions: A Theory about the Origin of Life

How life started isn't a specific concern of evolution.

Face it, the Darwinian "Theory of Evolution" is little more than an explanation of intraspecies adaptation. If that's all you want it to teach, fine. But please stop pretending it explains the Origins of Life, as most public school evolutionists try to teach.

Absolutely no school teaches evolution is the "origin of life". The problem Christians have is evolution contradicts the bronze age fairy tales some hold as literal. Evolution doesn't comment on how life began, but we know it certainly wasn't in the manner detailed in Genesis.

[Boetie]

Is God Unconstitutional, Part 1: Johnson, Phillip

In the article, titled "Is God Unconstitutional: The Establised Religious Philopsophy of America," Johnson's criticisms of "naturalistic assumptions" become part of a much larger campaign against cultural "modernism" and its tolerance of sexual promiscuity, materialism, atheism and other things - including Darwinian evolution - that evangelical Christian audiences tend to find repugnant.

It appears then, that the ID movement is trying to get away with promoting specific, Christian cultural beliefs and values in secular, public schools - just as the creation science movement attempted.

You can see more of johnson's articles here:

Johnson, Phillip E. - On-line Articles

This may be of interest as well

Doubting Rationalist: Powell, Michael

The efforts of the ID people is to get you to believe what they are saying. Key word: Believe

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Fonceai @phoenix The problem, though, is that the Bible often relies on interpretation, and many children don't possess the experiences in order to make the interpretive inferences. They often ask adults for help and those adults don't teach the children how to interpret, they teach them their own interpretation. I suggest that they should not expose children to religious scripture until the children have acquired enough experiences to compare the lessons of scripture with their own lives. I know from personal experience that the Bible was very confusing for me until I was older and could relate Biblical lessons to events in my own life and how I handled them.

Mmm. I barely read the Bible until I got into college. But at any rate, my problem is these parents who tell their children exactly what to think on even the most trivial matters, and then reprimand them if they disagree in any way. Take my experience for example. My parents think that Christians should vote Republican and like the war in Iraq. I happen to disagree on both counts. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt vote Republican and support thine war in Iraq". But my parents threatened to disown me over it. I think that this evolution thing is the same way. I don't agree with evolution. But I could care less. The Bible does not go into minuscule detail about how God made man. That would seem to indicate to me that it's not all that relevant. I'm not going to tell my [theoretical] kids that they can't study evolution. I would encourage them to learn everything they can. Maybe one of them will come up with a better theory.

But I think that a child's religious education should come from being around people whose lives testify to what they believe. I think that there are plenty of lessons in the Bible that kids can handle at an early age. The rest can come with time.

[Fonceai]

@phoenix

Thanks for your response. I only really have two things on which to comment.

The first is that, through reading your posts since I've been on VC, you are already not as single-minded in your approach to all things science.

Quote by: phoenix I don't agree with evolution. But I could care less. The Bible does not go into minuscule detail about how God made man. That would seem to indicate to me that it's not all that relevant. I'm not going to tell my [theoretical] kids that they can't study evolution. I would encourage them to learn everything they can. Maybe one of them will come up with a better theory.

Just that quote alone gives me the impression that while you don't agree with evolution, you don't discount the possibility that because the Bible didn't get into minuscule detail that evolution might fill in those gaps.

Ironic how science can be the "god of gaps" for religion.

Second...

Quote by: phoenix But I think that a child's religious education should come from being around people whose lives testify to what they believe. I think that there are plenty of lessons in the Bible that kids can handle at an early age. The rest can come with time.

I don't agree with that.

I don't think children possess the knowledge and experience to assess the validity and truth of what those adults tell them. For lack of a kinder-gentler expression, they don't question authority.

As such, they believe what the adults tell them not because the adults are being truthful, but because the adults (again lack of expression) are taking advantage of the fact that children don't question them.

There are, indeed, lessons that kids can handle, but they are better presented in an illustrated Bible for children, not by an adult holding, relatively speaking, the biggest book a kid has ever seen (and it doesn't even have pictures!!!)

[pandaz xx]

Quote by: sdbest I wonder. How pervasive would religions be if children were not indoctrinated? If religious teaching was given an "R" rating so that only people over the age of 18 were permitted to see it. How many people would become religious? Regards S.

wow.
that's a good idea.
too bad it'll never happen.

the christians will find it offensive & start stuff.
=/

I agree completely.

[shawmutt]

We'll, it's not perfect, but it's a beginning, and one of the main reasons I go to my church. I think religious education is paramount to a child's development to learn about the world around them and how people "tick".

[Apeman81]

Quote by: shawmutt I don't want to turn this into a general Christianity debate, but is there some way to "believe" the Bible that does not involve interpretation?

No. God's intent is that we develop a personal realtionship with Christ, through whom we gain salvation, purchased at the price of Christ's passion upon the cross.

The Bible is written for us to read as individuals, through which it is Christ's wish that we grow closer to him by a better understanding of his word.

While it also said that we should fellowship with one another to share our thoughts so that we may grow together as the body, the idea of dogma and doctrine are things of religion, and not our personal walk.

That's why its so easy to attack doctrine, its not what is meant to save us.

[Dirty Name]

“Misconception: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”

The strategy is clearly "indoctrinate them when they're young and don't know any better."

Dude, if there is a misconception about evolution - it's because public schools in the United States indoctrinate students at a very young age.

Further, does the average person really give a crap about intraspecies variation? No. The average person is interested in the Theory of Evolution because it attempts to explain how we got here - was not Darwin the author of the "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man"?

Clearly, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth if you compare Creationism with Evolution while at the same time claiming that Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.

If you are to be believed, we may as well close this thread, because, according to you, Creationism and Evolution are two completely different, unrelated subjects - one dealing with the Origin of Life and Species, one dealing with Intraspecies Variation.

Evolution doesn't comment on how life began, but we know it certainly wasn't in the manner detailed in Genesis.

Translation - evolution utterly fails to explain how we got here, but you're never going to consider the possibility that God had something to do with it because you've been indoctrinated in the public schools for so long you actually believe archeaopteryx really is a transitional fossil.

[RickSp]

Give it up DN. Creationism is an untestable religious belief. Evolution is a scientific theory, tested and proven repeatedly, which is at the heart of most modern life sciences. They could not be more different.

No one, not even you, has any business teaching my kids religion in science class, anymore than I have the right to force my way into Sunday School to teach physics.