Mode of the Debate: Targeting Children

My pessimistic side tells me that too many individuals will be scarred with ignorance for life by this terrible phenomenon.My optimistic side says that this approach is doomed to failure. That the human spirit will ultimately rebel against such shackles.

The key point is that the movement is designed to extent beyond just children. As I pointed out in their own words, it extends to even shunning any others who might hold differing positions. Note the emphasis on separation and that their duty is to promote harmony among the believers. There is no mention of harmony for all or any acceptance of any other point of view. While they might adopt the slogan "Teach the Controversy" as a temporary tactic, their goal is to reject anything that disagrees with their position.Note also their absolute rejection of association with others. Their goal is simply to isolate the whole community.Also remember that this is but one example of a vast movement in the US today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My first exposure to dinosaurs was in the Alley Oop comic strip and, later on, The Flintstones. We didn't have many books on dinosaurs back then (and they were of the brontosaurus-had-two-brains variety) but somehow I learned that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted.I don't remeber that revelation producing any particular trauma. I never had trouble separating fact from fiction.Years later, as a teenager, I was exposed to anti-scientific creationism. I remember my favorite pastor saying that dinosaurs never existed at all, they were a hoax. I almost expected to see a cuckoo come out of his forehead on a spring.My brother and I used to tease our fundier cousins, telling them that there must have been dinosaurs on the ark. They vehemently argued against it. Decades later, when I found out that that's now standard creo nonsense, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing./jaunt down memory laneAnyway, I have some confidence in the resiliency of the human mind. Targeting children with lies is vile and insidious, but I'm not convinced it's effective.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Never meant to imply any trauma. Just the suggestion that if presented with two opposing points of view children are more likely to choose on the basis of 'appeal' rather than rationality. Flinstones and comics are one thing. Adults all around will tell you that these things are not 'real'.
Ken Ham lecturing at the front of a hall in the role of teacher however is a figure of authority and 'knowledge'. I am inclined to agree. The human spirit is naturally rebellious. Especially in the face of blatant bullshit
However even if it does not win out as a tactic in the long term there are bound to be some individual casualties of ignoarnce and that in itself is quite depressing.

I don't think children are much different from adults in that. How often do we hear adults say they'd "rather" be a child of God than related to an ape? They never did though. I figured out for myself that talking, porridge-eating, chair-sitting bears weren't real. If anything, that fiction helped me to understand that talking snakes are fiction too.(I suspect that a lot of creationist adults have to unlearn the discernment that they had as children.) And even if we had no chance of winning in the end, the fight would still be worthwhile.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

yes, probably a good point. but for me at least that irrational "hey that's cool!" response led into a rational interest in the sciences, and a justified sense of wonder.creationists seem to be attempting to exploit that initial irrational wonder, and keep it irrational. actually, several species of dinosaurs preyed on our cave-children ancestors. if you go into the american southwest today, and die of dehydration, flocks of dinosaurs will prey on you too.and the giant terror birds only died about 2 million years ago. that's pretty recent... indeed. education, i guess.

---

stegosaurus, which has a giant nerve-cluster in its posterior. yes, i remember those sorts of books. god, i can't believe how inaccurate some of that crap was.they portrayed dinosaurs as big drooling lizards, dragging their tails. the kid's literature is really, really far behind the times, i guess. i have books from the same time period that depict predatory dinosaurs as fast, gracile, balanced over their hips, and covered in feathers.

---

i saw that movie. it made me want to vomit.that was nothing like my childhood in the church. sure we sang and learned stories about jesus, but we were never used in political activity and we never learned about such political positions. i stopped going to my last member church after someone shared that there was a group from the church going to the local abortion clinic.but then my parents were sane and may have excluded me purposely from such things. as such, i think there's something to be said for responsible parenting. i can't trust anyone who would include persons under 16 in their political action.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

they don't just lie to children. ask any adult fundie what their idea of evolution is, and i bet it's the same.

considering that most people can't comprehend the reality of modern science and that while many evolutionistas (spelled purposely like fashionistas) have considered the philosophical consequences of evolution versus creation, most people who accept evolution probably accept it because of what some book/person/organisation told them.there's nothing wrong with trusting what people or books tell you, as long as you consider what you know about it and how it mixes with what else you accept. the religious idea of "testing the spirits" is applicable to secular life. you have to consider your source and how trustworthy it is.

i agree. for a year and a half of middle school i was enrolled at a christian school. aside from a single chapel (wednesday mornings) visit by the illustrious kent hovid (yes, i went to school in pensacola), the only other exposure we had to evolution in any sense was 7th grade science on the first day. we used ordinary science books and we skipped the first some chapters with a small blurb from my teacher (who i'm not sure was convinced) of "we're skipping these because we don't believe in them." (this of course led me to spend that class period reading those chapters.) however, we spent multiple bible classes and chapel sessions and even combined courses on sexual purity. in sixth grade all the boys and girls from my level were brought together and told how disappointed our teachers were that some student had claimed that he'd already 'had a girl in his bed'. we were separated after a long lecture and instructed in our separate groups about basic gender issues and how we were called to purity specific to our sex. i'm sure there was more, but i don't really remember. i was so beyond worrying at boys at that time. i had crushes, but i barely had friends.i agree that the concerns of isolationist christians are much more complex than the anti-evolutionist agenda. evolution is easy to combat. sex isn't.

i'm convinced that the most effective target is the post-adolescent group containing individuals who have done things they're not pleased with (the extent of these things is relative to the individual). the most fervent believers i've met are those running from their own past. they're also the quickest to blame others for their failure to renounce themselves.

i know you heard this, because i think we watched it together, but the movie neither shocked nor surprised me. it didn't bring up the vile revulsion it was clearly supposed to. perhaps it was because it didn't show me anything i hadn't seen first hand. it didn't even show me everything i'd seen first hand.it was more... uncomfortable. "i can't believe i went to churches like this" kinda stuff.

---

i'm quite familiar with this idea, saw it happening to some friends. it doesn't work -- it's actually counter-productive. children aren't aware of the facts of the world, and can't handle them when they do get to them. if anything, the kids are more curious.ignorance is not strength.

---

What are the chances of those children in that audience actually going to a real school at all, let alone one that teaches evolution.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!