Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

Such a school would be difficult to describe as "non-religious" but instead of being "pro-religious" I'd say it's probably more accurately described as "pro-christian", since christians are not generally "pro-religious" in any broad or general sense.

I'm speaking to function. I'm not denying that there are Christians at schools, and that they may or may not discuss their beliefs. However, the extent to which this occurs is not explicit; I can say with certainty that information about Evolution being taught to students is explicit because it's part of the school curricula. Even if 99% of the attendees are Christian, it's just as possible that only two people talk about religion as it would be with the entire school. It's conjectural. Evolution being taught at school is a fact. 

It's hard to take you [athias]seriously when you make statements like this that casually dismiss all of science.

I do not provide definitions for entertainment. Also, are you presuming that scientific theory and ideology are mutually exclusive?

How exactly does "subjective idealism" conflict with "natural selection"?

Darwin proposed that, with the natural variations that occur in populations, any trait that is beneficial would make that individual more likely to survive and pass on the trait to the next generation. This process of natural selection could result in completely new species. Darwin did not have an explanation for how the traits could be preserved over the succeeding generations. At the time, the prevailing theory of inheritance was that the traits of the parents were blended in the offspring. But this would mean that any beneficial trait would be diluted out of the population within a few generations. This is because most of the blending over the next generations would be with individuals that did not have the trait.

No idea. But so far your only example of a non-religious ideology has been evolution, which is not an ideology. 

It is not irrelevant at all. You seem to have a conception of public schools as places where kids sit like drones all day being force-fed information. It's not that way at all. In fact, I would argue that kids take in more information from their peers than they do from teachers.

This is so overly simplistic as to be useless. For one thing, it assumes religious families only get a dose of religious information once a week when they go to church. For another, it assume kids get no exposure whatsoever to religion on days they go to school. Both are ridiculous assumptions and render the entire exercise moot.

Species change over time. Traits are inherited. Species have common ancestors.

Genesis 9:12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

Bacteria have no goals.

Prove it.

Please let me know what makes you think the "gambler's fallacy" applies to or somehow countermands valid scientific theories.

If a theory provides testable predictive power and efficacy, then it is considered a valid theory.

If we're quibbling definitions, 'evolution' means 'change over time'.   Unless you believe that there has been no change in the form of any living thing since the beginning of the world you 'believe in evolution'.   My guess is athias believes in evolution!

Darwinian evolution is the consequence of the self-evident facts that variation between indiviuals a) affects their relative fitness and b) is at least  partly heritable.   Given those facts, adaptive evolution must occur - it's simple logic.  It was that incredibly obvious (in hindsight) principle Darwin and Wallace gave us. 

I think you have to be very brave to deny the validity of a and b - I wonder if  Athias is brave enough...

It's hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this that casually dismiss all of science.

Are you suggesting that many or most religious people believe their idea of god is merely provisional?

You stated this: 

If a theory provides testable predictive power and efficacy, then it is considered a valid theory.

And I responded by characterizing it as a gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy can also be described as the logical fallacy in which random process become less random, and more predictable, the more often they're repeated. (That's how I incorporated the gambler's fallacy in my statement.)

And I responded by characterizing it as a gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy can also be described as the logical fallacy in which random process become less random, and more predictable, the more often they're repeated. (That's how I incorporated the gambler's fallacy in my statement.)

How exactly does "subjective idealism" conflict with "natural selection"?

Where did I state that it did?

Here's the problem.

Are you suggesting that teaching the scientific theory of evolution is somehow anti-religious or anti-christian?

If this is NOT your suggestion, then why are you comparing "time in church" to "time in public school"?

It would appear that the one would have no effect on the other (they are not obviously in conflict).

Scientific theories and ideologies can be mixed and matched.

Understanding a particular scientific theory does not necessarily inform your ideology or vice versa.

For example, an atheist might deny the validity of evolutionary theory and a theist might embrace it.

The theory itself is not an ideology and therefore cannot be in conflict with an ideology (unless that ideology explicitly excludes it).

Here you go. [LINK]

It would appear that the one would have no effect on the other (they are not obviously in conflict).

Anti-christian in that it contradicts the account of creation in Genesis. 

You've repeatedly stated that theory is not an ideology, but fail to demonstrate even in juxtaposition to that which you do consider ideology that it isn't an ideology. Thus far, you've argued Ipse Dixit.

Here you go. [LINK]

That's not proof. Do better.

You seemed to be suggesting that "natural selection" is invalid.

You also mentioned that you might consider yourself a "subjective idealist".

Are these two positions interrelated in your mind?

Or perhaps a better question might be, why would you presume intentionality is preferable to "natural selection"?

Or perhaps a better question might be, what specific logical problems can you point out regarding "natural selection"?

Nice bit of sophistry. Evolution doesn't simply state "change over time." It's an ideology attempting to explain the method and nature of this presumable change--particularly biologically.

I continue to repeat that "seem" is not an argument because it isn't an argument. "Seem" is your impression. If I didn't state it, then I did not state it. And once again, I do not take a position. I merely observe. At best, you may be able to state that I'm characterizing both evolution and religion as comparably rational or irrational. I don't have any proclivity toward either. My original statement if you remember assessed young Christians' leaving the Church for (more) rational beliefs, and noting that Evolution was mentioned. You and some of the others took grievance with my characterizing evolution as an ideology. It only "appears" that I'm claiming invalidity if one holds the scientific method as the primary metric for discerning information about one's environment.

To me, it's all the same. Science is no less abstract than religion. 

Genesis may have just skimmed over exactly how god created everything...

I'm not sure the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I've provided definitions and examples.  You have explicitly refused to provide either.  You seem to be the one making "an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion."

They cannot have goals.

KABOOM!!

I'd say pedantry rather than sophistry.

I think it would be nice to know what you think.  It's clear what we evolutionists believe, but what precisely do you believe?  Are you YEC, OEC, ID?   for all I know you could be a Lamarckian!   

I do not take a position. I merely observe.

Where's your proof. Your video didn't state that they can't have goals. It didn't even imply it (if anything, it implied the contrary.) Please elaborate on the reason they cannot have goals.

Then I suggest you write in a way that doesn't make you come over as a creationist stooge.  Personally, I believe that if you quack like a duck and walk like a duck your still a duck after denying it.   It just makes you a dishonest duck.

Water's flowing down hill is a phenomenon, not a consequence. Consequence implies action; action implies agency. Even your statement "survival is a consequence of 'not dying'" implies a goal since it can be written as "to survive is to not die." To not die is the end of the effort to survive. Now if you're stating survival=not dying, that's another thing. But relating the two by incorporating the concept of consequence is counterintuitive. 

It is not possible that a scientific theory can refute this reality.