Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

quote:

---

you've been presented with several examples

---

I don't recall any examples. If post #7 is referred to, I did not, and will not get past the first two words. If dealing with evidence involves conceding that one is some lower form of life, it will have to go unobserved.Of course there are people in the USA who say all sorts of things and do all sorts of things, that the rest of the world thinks is crazy. There is no denying that. But whether one can say that they are evangelical is another thing altogether. There is a current fashion for calling onself evangelical- in many parts of the world, one can hardly get oneself street cred without doing so. Allegedly Christian people who, within living memory, would view evangelicals with undisguised contempt are now going under the same banner. So one must reckon with the possibility that many, if not most, who today self-identify as evangelicals are actually the enemies of evangelicalism.So whether these new species of evangelicalism are identifiable as genuine evangelicalism must be a a matter of sober examination. If this scrutiny is not made, one could make a completely false accusation, tarring evangelicalism with the same brush that properly applies to its enemies.The first task, it seems to me, is to reach a consensus about a definition of evangelicalism.

quote:

---

the concept of logic, which involves determining true and false claims using logical reasoning ?

---

Logical truth is another case, that may have no relation to any other sort of truth. One may reach a 'true' logical conclusion that is based on premises that may be actually false. Science of course depends on logic, but does not recognise the category 'true' except in the logical sense, and ET is true in that sense. It fits the data.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

quote:

---

you originally stated that science did not recognize the concept of truth.

---

Truth in the sense you used.

quote:

---

logical truth was included in the sense of truth I used.

---

Then please demonstrate your truth by the use of logic.

quote:

---

My 'truth' is only the common definition that some things are either true or false, and that this can be determined from logical reasoning.

---

quote:

---

Funny how things turn out on this thread, since it wasn't even 6 months ago that Texas voted that every aspect of a scientific theory should be examined, and that the evolutionists down in the US complained heavily about it.

---

Please demonstrate by logic how things have turned out to be funny on this thread.

quote:

---

1) If Evolutionists in this thread complained about something christians do, but that the NCSE would be guilty of wanting to do, I would find this thread ironic.

---

But can Christians prove their existence (i.e. the truth of Christianity)?

quote:

---

The fear of the creationists invasion in the schools results in the NCSE wanting to teach a one-way evolutionnary-naturalistic explanation in schools, without questions allowed or alternatives proposed.

---

It's nothing of the kind. The 7-day creationist proposal is as valid as a proposal to teach that Bugs Bunny actually existed. There is not a scrap of scientific evidence for either. What creationists want is to destroy science education itself- economy, civilisation itself. There would be no injustice done if their belief was made illegal. People have been imprisoned for less.

quote:

---

Are you honestly proposing that children be allowed to question scientific theories? Like Einstein's, Newton's, Darwin's, etc.? Really?

---

Good science teachers welcome the questions of students. If a student comes up with a hypothesis that could, after testing, supplant Einstein's theory, all well and good! The same goes for ET, and it should be taught with reference to its historical development and explained as fully as time allows. It is understanding why ET is accepted that is important. There is no objection to asking questions, other than wasting time, because enquiry increases comprehension. Science has no fear of scrutiny, as the 7-day advocates may imagine.

quote:

---

When their ideas are examined and tested against fact they get ripped to shreds. That is the last thing they want even though they claim they do.

---

Quite so. What they really want is protected status- their glossy literature to be spread among the semi-educated, TV and radio interviews with tame interviewers, even 'net forums where opposition is simply not allowed!

quote:

---

Would you find it appropriate to talk about irreducible complexity, Intelligent Design, etc. in a religious class ?

---

Irreducible complexity would be difficult to fit into a typical religious education course in a public school, because those courses are (and surely should be, if religion is to be taught at all) based on studying major world faiths- Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism, etc., supposedly without bias to or against any one of them. Now, to my knowledge, no religion, major or minor, is based on Young-Earth Creation, or holds it to be essential necessity. So the subject of evolution, or any other scientific view that is predicated on or predicates an old earth, has no real relevance in the typical school situation. (What so often is forgotten is that an old earth was widely accepted by European intelligentsia well before Darwin set sail.)

quote:

---

If so, would what they learn in this class come in contradiction with what they learn in science class (ex: naturalistic abiogenesis) ?

---

Indeed it would, if it was taught. But it would be taught as a possible conflict, because public schools, unlike religious institutions, do not prescribe, they merely describe. So student cognitive dissonance would be an option, if required!

quote:

---

Nonetheless, my opinion is that you do not teach things to children when they do not have the mental capabilities to question it. Teaching things to kids when they are not mentally able to express critical thinking on the subject equals indoctrination in my book.

---

In that case, one would be hardly able to teach anything. Philosophers dispute that anything is true! (One really ought to read my posts carefully. ) The good teacher in any case gives adequate indication that 'official' views have changed and will change, whether that be in science, history, the arts or whatever. So everything is provisional anyway, and most children are not that concerned with making sure that everything they learn is exactly correct; more in making sure they can absorb it to a level that will give them eventual success in the jobs market (if they care, that is). Which is what public education is for, and surely should be for- not to propagandise.But propaganda seems to be exactly what YECs and IDers are wishing to pass on. They mostly claim to be Christians, if they are religious at all, but steadfastly ignore the fact that millions of self-described Christians, including virtually all European theologians, accept an old, evolved earth. They refuse to explain why YEC/ID is important in education. One has to suspect that they have an agenda that is not one that they care to make public. With their campaign to introduce non-scientific sources into science teaching they put at risk the very means of wealth production at its most basic level, and for the sake of a secret, suspect, agenda. Now that, surely, competes to be the last word in sociopathy? Maybe the most just response to them would be for them to be threatened with being left on an island in pre-Industrial Revolution conditions. No doubt there would then be sudden realisations that scientific theories are not so dumb after all, and the island would not need to be very large.Edited by ochaye, : Improved sense.

quote:

---

Well, the reason you need to try to destroy science is that science produces results, and those results are counter to revelation and scripture.

---

Many scientists, including Faraday and Newton, have believed, do believe, in revelation and scripture. Why were they, why are they deceived?

It's hardly a question of whether evangelicalism reflects what the Bible unambiguously says. It is what evangelicals say, or rather, allegedly say. No quote has yet been provided. It is common knowledge that certain people in the USA of low reputation, self-describing as evangelicals, adopt methods that get them that reputation. They are disowned by others calling themselves evangelical, with a much longer history than those in the USA. As has been proposed already, the pre-requisite seems to be to come to a consensus about how evangelicalism is to be defined. If that proposal is not taken up, it seems unlikely that the thread can make any progress regarding its narrower topic.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think what Percy is arguing is what the bible says about damnation

---

It is of no concern to others in this thread where evangelicals or anyone else might get the notion of hell. It is the 'Social Issues' aspect that applies here.

quote:

---

and how evangelicals push this on to children.

---

That has yet to be demonstrated, though. It's a statement akin to 'Atheists indulge in pornography.'

quote:

---

An example might include the fairly recent documentary concerning bible camp.

---

This is an advance that might lead us to the definition we require. Can we read more about this camp, to that end?

duplicate deletedEdited by ochaye, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Not trying to speak for him, but I think Coyote should have worded that as saying that those results are counter to the evangelicals' theology, to their sectarian interpretation of revelation and scripture.

---

I don't think that will make any difference. For one thing, Faraday and other scientists such as Asa Gray, the Presbyterian botanist, were evangelicals, and at a time when that description was much narrower than it is today (in the USA, anyway). But there is no such thing as evangelical theology. Evangelicalism takes the same Protestant theology that other Protestants state in their official documents, making only a difference of emphasis (or taking it seriously, according to your pov). Remember that evangelicals are and have been spread throughout most Protestantism; in Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregational, Brethren, Independent bodies, in others, and in informal or temporary groups. There is not much of a sectarian aspect to them, at formal level, anyway. One might even argue that it is evangelicalism that makes a Protestant denomination credible.The findings of science are surely as applicable to the Roman Catholic who believes in virgin birth and the resurrection as they are to the evangelical; moreso, in fact, as Catholicism holds to miraculous events that Protestants do not accept have occurred. It is Catholicism that has had the most difficulty with the advance of science in every century since Galileo, due to its dogmatic pronouncements. Science certainly produces results, but those results have not been found necessarily counter to revelation and the Bible. Indeed, many working scientists are believers in a supernal being who has used the natural laws he created to make his existence known to mankind by breaking those laws, such as by making water into wine.