For Wordcrafters who have been here for awhile...gottcha! [For the relative newbies, there is an ongoing discussion on this board about my love of the word epicaricacy.]

The word I am talking about is Evangelical. As you can see from this article is USA Today, some people think this word will go the way of fundamentalist; it became "misunderstood, misappropriated and maligned" and similarly evangelical is becoming too extremist of a word.

What do you think? Will evangelical die out like the word fundamentalist did?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh: Will evangelical die out like the word fundamentalist did?

Not as long as Evangelists find Darwinian and other rational concepts as objects for exhibiting their nescience.

I confess that I have always used the definition, "...Marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause..."

I was surprised to note that some dictionaries put this as the third and final (and thus least important) definition. In this sense I am truly evangelistic about fine beer but couldn't care less about the other meanings.

quote:

Evangelical

quote:

What do you think? Will evangelical die out like the word fundamentalist did?

What's wrong with the word "evangelical?" I should know better than to get into a discussion like this, but hewre goes. Evangelical simply means to go out and spread the "good news (about Christianity." There is nothing wrong with that. It is when it become synonymous with "shove it down your throat" that there is trouble. I woyld hate to see another perfectly good word die from abuse by a few.

As for "fundamentalist." Most adherents of a religion believe that they have grasped the "fundamental" meaning of the religion. A better term for those who interpret scriptures literally, would be literalists.

As for Darwin - Many (most) scientists have some religious belief but most are also evolutionists.

The meaning I originally knew for this word was "of or pertaining to evangelism," and evangelicals were those who engaged in spreading their versions of the faith, who sent missionaries out to convert people in faraway places. Some of them were monsters and others were good, kind and well intentioned, though probably misguided. The term most definitely was not limited to some narrow band of fundamentalists, but applied to a broad range of denominations. For this reason, Richard's definition sounds right to me.

However, in the popular (and ignorant) press, and especially since the prime of Billy Graham, Evangelical has come to mean Billy Graham's kind of Christian --conservative, but not nasty--and now it means a kind of mean, judgmental, exclusionary kind of Christianity, which, in my book, isn't really Christianity.

Not to start a religious battle, but if the E-word has come to mean a narrow-minded, hard hearted, ugly expression of "spirituality," then the sooner it goes, the better--and I will take great epicaricacy in that!

Wordmatic

Yes, Kalleh, I think that the once positive word "evangelical," like "fundamentalist," has lost its true meaning and will disappear due to the sociological malignment of even the best evangelical people. For all the talk of political correctness, we live, unfortunately, in a world where people without spiritual faith are completely comfortable insulting people who do have spiritual faith. I would never make a remark on a public or private message board indicating that people who do not believe as I do are ignorant or stupid. I find that kind of behavior inexcusable.

quote:

I woyld hate to see another perfectly good word die from abuse by a few.

Sometimes forums and emails, and such, are hard; we don't know the other person's tone and we can't affirm, on the spot, what he or she is saying. Perhaps that's happened here? I surely didn't intend, missann, to say that I think the word should die. I was merely quoting an article in a newspaper. I hope you didn't assume that, but I couldn't tell.

Likewise, Saranita, I hope you didn't think that anyone here was saying that people who "don't believe as I do are ignorant or stupid." I surely didn't read that in any post here, but again, I couldn't tell if that was what you were saying or not.

Perhaps starting this thread wasn't a good idea; it's too close to discussing religion. I am sorry.

I too did not mean to offend anybody, and Saranita, I hope you did not think I was saying conservative religious beliefs are unintelligent. I'm sorry if anything I said was strident or upsetting. I just get annoyed with the new connotations surrounding "Evangelical," since I have belonged to some churches where gentler manifestations of that theme were or are being carried out.

Wordmatic

quote:

Originally posted by saranita:
we live, unfortunately, in a world where people without spiritual faith are completely comfortable insulting people who do have spiritual faith. I would never make a remark on a public or private message board indicating that people who do not believe as I do are ignorant or stupid.

The opposite of course also being true as this (unintentionally, I'm sure) demonstrates. I am a lifelong atheist and I take great pains not to insult anyone's religious beliefs however much I disagree with them. The generalisation quoted above sounds very much as if I am being accused - because of my beliefs- of being "comfortable insulting people who do have spiritual faith".

It just goes to show how the best of intentions can be unintentionally undermined by the strength of our beliefs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalleh:
I am with kalleh and Wordmatic. There should be no problem with any sincerely held religious beliefs. There also should be no antagonism if those who hold such beliefs don't try to force them on others of different persuasions.
The anti-Darwinism cult is only a subsection of evangelism, but when it prohibits the teaching of ideas soundly based on observational and experimental science it is frankly unacceptable. I understand that a large number if not the majority of US schools are not allowed to teach Darwinian theory, to which all rational people rightly object.
To inhibit the dissemination of scientifically accepted knowledge is akin to mediaeval burning of books and tracts. We strive for tolerance in both directions.

Kalleh and Missann, nothing in any of your posts is insulting in any way. I have never read anything by either of you that I found insulting to anyone. Bob, neither do I find your posts insulting, nor was it my intention to insult or accuse you or any other athiest. My point is that because a person whose faith is fundamentalist finds himself or herself on the defense much more often than do agnostics and athiests, I am in a position where I now find I must add to my post what seemed to me an obvious truth, the statement that not all athiests nor agnostics insult others, of course, nor do all people who call themselves Christians behave respectfully towards those who believe differently than they do. But, you see, my post was interpreted somehow as being generally accusatory and I was thought to have had a rather bristly reaction, whereas when Evangelicals are far more directly referred to as irrational and nescient, it's barely even noticed. I'm not upset, but it is not the first remark of that kind at Wordcraft, and when I read such things, I am just rational and intelligent enough to know I've been insulted. It seems to me we should surely be able to discuss words and concepts without abusing this board as an opportunity to hurt others, whether direct or veiled. It is because I have seen posting of that nature destroy the future of excellent boards such as this one that I felt I must say something. I do not want newcomers who happen to be people of faith to discover the excellence of this board and then find their most deeply held beliefs referred to as making them somehow too dim to be able to understand things here. Religious flamewars also erupt from such posts, and they, too, cripple or destroy good boards and forums. It is my intention here and elsewhere to respect others and to know that intelligent people do not necesarily all believe the same way. From what I have read at Wordcraft, I believe almost everyone else here holds those same intentions. I am asking that those who have given evidence that they do not, simply be a little more aware and respectful of the fact that not every Wordcrafter is athiest or agnostic or Christian or Jewish or Wiccan (ad infinitum) and that it is not necessary and not acceptable to be insulting. That's all.

I agree completely with everything you are saying but I confess that I am a little puzzled about why you are saying it here. I've done a search and can't find any use of "irrational" in the sense you describe or any use at all of the word "nescient".

For the record in my last post I was just trying to point out how easy it is to inadvertently give an impression that is unintended on a message board.

quote:

Originally posted by pearce:
I understand that a large number if not the majority of US schools are not allowed to teach Darwinian theory, to which all rational people rightly object.

Pearce, this is absolutely not the case. There have been many flurries of controversies and lawsuits brought about by proponents of creationism and their opponents, but as you will see if you read this article, only a few places actually are teaching creationism along with evolution. The standard bio texts still contain content on Darwin and his theory.

Not that I mean to stir up our previous controversy over what "most Americans" believe. As Missann points out, many scientists have both scientific knowledge on the subject and at the same time hold religious beliefs. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Wordmatic

quote:

Pearce, this is absolutely not the case.

From what I recall of the matter you are quite right - now. But for a long time (in the Southern States I believe) evolution was not taught. Of course this is now a historical note - but it can take a long time for outmoded beliefs to fade from popular memory - especially the popular memory of those living in another country.

quote:

Evangelical simply means to go out and spread the "good news (about Christianity."

As I said earlier, although that is now one of the more commonly used definitions, it is not the only definition.

I am an evangelist for the cause of fine beer; I am also an atheist.

I would add that I am frequently gay and I have intercourse with several women every day. And I sometimes use the less common meanings of words, as well.

quote:

Originally posted by saranita:
Evangelicals are far more directly referred to as irrational and nescient, … I am just rational and intelligent enough to know I've been insulted.

I am really sorry you feel insulted. You have misinterpreted my views. Please read carefully what I actually said:

quote:

There should be no problem with any sincerely held religious beliefs. There also should be no antagonism if those who hold such beliefs don't try to force them on others of different persuasions.
The anti-Darwinism cult is only a subsection of evangelism,…… We strive for tolerance in both directions.

I hold absolutely no religious prejudices and hope that is now apparent to you.

I have some comments on the words we are discussing.

Christian fundamentalism refers to a specific theology. It is an American term that first appeared at the end of the 19th century (Niagara NY 1895 is the earliest use I know of) and was popularized by a series of paperbacks collectively called The Fundamentals published in 1909 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A., now Biola University). The year of publication is significant: the authors believed that the 1906 earthquake was divine punishment for San Francisco's iniquitous ways. The five fundamentals are the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the substitutionary theory of salvation, and the physical resurrection of Jesus.

quote:

The anti-Darwinism cult is only a subsection of evangelism,

I think the word you want here is "evangelicalism", which refers certain sects or doctrines of Christianity, not "evangelism", which means crusading zeal, Christian or otherwise (Apple Computer employs individuals with the job title "Mac Evangelist").

quote:

I understand that a large number if not the majority of US schools are not allowed to teach Darwinian theory, to which all rational people rightly object.

I agree with Wordmatic that this is entirely untrue, and, Richard, you are completely wrong as well. I am amazed at the amount of propaganda that is passed on to the UK.

quote:

But, you see, my post was interpreted somehow as being generally accusatory and I was thought to have had a rather bristly reaction, whereas when Evangelicals are far more directly referred to as irrational and nescient, it's barely even noticed.

Let me explain, Saranita. A very worried wordcrafter wrote me, thinking that this person had offended you. I only read that person's post, and didn't go back over the whole thread (my bad), thus my post to you. Had I comprehensively reviewed the thread, I would have understood your discomfort. It certainly wasn't that I ignored that post and jumped on yours. I was trying to smooth some ruffled feathers here. I honestly think that no one in this thread has meant to offend. On the other hand, I wish I had never started this thread.

Thanks, neveu, for bringing it back to words. My original intent wasn't to talk about religion, but the loss of the word "fundamentalist" and, perhaps, the upcoming loss of the word "evangelical." Since the original article about this occurred in the USA Today and was entitled "Can the E-Word be Saved"...well, it seemed like a no-brainer for me to start this thread because we have called "epicaricacy" the "e-word" here for a long time.

Oh well...

quote:

From what I recall of the matter you are quite right - now. But for a long time (in the Southern States I believe) evolution was not taught. Of course this is now a historical note - but it can take a long time for outmoded beliefs to fade from popular memory - especially the popular memory of those living in another country.

I think Richard is correct. Until Sputnik, most public school textbook publishers preferred to steer clear of evolution (especially in the Bible belt) and quietly did so.

I don't think so, neveu, but I will look around to see what I can find. At any rate, Pearce is definitely wrong that Darwin isn't presented in American schools today. I am amazed at what some of the British hear about us!

My source is Prof. Edward Larson's lecture series "The Theory of Evolution - A History of Controvery".

quote:

Originally posted by pearce: I understand that a large number if not the majority of US schools are not allowed to teach Darwinian theory

I believe you're mistaken, Pearce. As I understand it, there's no question that schools may include Darwinism in their curriculum. (I don't know how many choose to do so; my understanding is that the vast majority do.)

Rather, the controversy has been whether they are allowed to also present 'creationism', along with Darwinism. My understand is that the US Supreme Court has held that they prohibited from teaching creationism -- and that lower courts have later held that the schools may not circumvent that prohibition by dressing it up under the name 'intelligent design'.

See my post here.

quote:

I agree with Wordmatic that this is entirely untrue, and, Richard, you are completely wrong as well. I am amazed at the amount of propaganda that is passed on to the UK.

When I have time I will research. My memory is that it was in the 1920s that this controversy surfaced - possibly not for the first time - and it was then that certain schools didn't teach evolution. The controversy then was whether they should teach is alongside creationism. The controversy now seems to be whether they should do the opposite.

My memory is that it was in the 1920s that this controversy surfaced - possibly not for the first time - and it was then that certain schools didn't teach evolution.

You may be thinking of the 1925 Scopes trial (aka The Monkey Trial). Scopes taught evolution in defiance to the Butler Act. Stanley Kramer made a great movie based on it in 1960 based on the 1955 play: Inherit the Wind.

I'll conclude my contributions to this discussion by saying that I think "evangelical" will be around forever because it has "angel" in it but "fundamentalism" will disappear because it sounds too much like math.

quote:

You may be thinking of the 1925 Scopes trial (aka The Monkey Trial). Scopes taught evolution in defiance to the Butler Act.

That's the one. So Pearce was partly correct, although the law was Tennessee State Law, not Federal Law. Mind you, I was surprised to learn that it remained on the statute books until 1967.

quote:

Mind you, I was surprised to learn that it remained on the statute books until 1967.

Of course, every jurisdiction has silly laws on its books that nobody ever pays any attention to. Interestingly, I'm not able to find any indication whatsoever that that law was never again used.

In fact, it seems to me that the original Scopes trial was drummed up to bring publicity to all concerned. The Butler Act, prohibiting teaching that man had arisen by evolution,¹ had been signed into law on March 21, 1925. (This presented a bit of a problem, for the state also required the use of a particular textbook, and that text espoused evolution!) At the time the governor commented, "Probably the law will never be applied."

But the ACLU promptly announced that it would defend anyone accused of violating that act. (Publicity-seeking? I'd love to read the announcement!) Down in Tennessee, a local businessman convened a meeting in the local drugstore, and convinced his peers that such a trial would put their little town (population 1800) on the map. Needing a defendant, they called upon Mr. Scopes, the 24-year-old football coach who had occasionally substitute-taught a science class. Scopes couldn't even recall whether he'd taught evolution (!), but he was willing to oblige: "If you can prove that I've taught evolution ..., then I'll be willing to stand trial." Within two months after the act was signed, they went through a nominal arrest of Scopes, and the trial was on.

Publicity they got. High-powered lawyers were attracted to each side, journalists from around the world flocked to the little town to report the trial, and it was also the first U.S. trial to be broadcast on national radio.

This information is from Wikipedia, and I won't bore you with more. My conclusion is that the trial was largely a publicitiy stunt (and a very successful one), and that no one really took the law seriously. Indeed, after the state court tossed out Scope's conviction on a technicality, remanding the case for retrial, the state never even went to the trouble of having a retrial. All parties, having gotten their publicity, had no further interest in the substantive matter!

I should add that his was a surprise to me. From the wonderful movie Inherit the Wind, I'd thought that this trial had been a serious battle-between-good-and-evil. But now I'm a good deal more skeptical!

---

¹Interestingly, it didn't forbid teaching of evolution of organisms other than man (though that was probably Mr. Butler's intent), and it did not require that creationism be taught.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pearce: I understand that a large number if not the majority of US schools are not allowed to teach Darwinian theory

I believe you're mistaken, Pearce. As I understand it, there's no question that schools may include Darwinism in their curriculum. (I don't know how many choose to do so; my understanding is that the vast majority do.)

I did make the point that it was not the majority of schools that did not teach Darwinism. The fact that the US Courts had to decide the several related issues surely confirms there was a vexatious argument.
In a long section on creationism, which I do not equate with evalengical Christianity, Wikipedia states:

quote:

United States


Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia
According to a 2006 Gallup poll,[25] about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.[25]
In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism."[26][27]
In 2000, a poll by the left wing [28] think-tank People For the American Way [29] estimated that:
20% of Americans believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% of Americans believe that only evolution should be taught in science classes — religious explanations should be taught in another class;
29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory;
13% of Americans believe that Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class;
16% of Americans believe that only Creationism should be taught;
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48 to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). [30] (See the chart)

Thus, I remain of the view that there is a problem, and a serious one. But I again emphasise that I am commenting on an educational system, not on any individual's absolute right to hold their own religious beliefs.

I am sorry people take pieces of my threads out of context and misinterpret my beliefs.

I shall say no more.

quote:

I'll conclude my contributions to this discussion by saying that I think "evangelical" will be around forever because it has "angel" in it but "fundamentalism" will disappear because it sounds too much like math.

Nicely said, Saranita.

My, we do get ourselves worked up about these subjects, don't we? I know that Richard (in other threads) has also posted these surveys about how "all America" thinks. It's common knowledge on Wordcraft what I think about generalizations, unless of course it's a study of sufficient size with scientific sampling techniques so that we can reliably generalize to 300 M people. I don't find studies with n's of 1000 sufficient for those kinds of conclusions. Perhaps others here do. Further, I'd have to examine how the questions were worded. At my workplace we hired Gallup to conduct a survey for us, and I had to laugh at the way they looked at critically thinking: "How many times a day did you critically think?" We are talking Gallup!

At any rate, my concern had been that people in England (this isn't the first time this has been brought up) think that our schools don't teach evolution. Neveu, you cited a source (which I will look into), and so for now I will assume you are right that evolution wasn't taught until Sputnik. Even so, the point Pearce stated was, "I understand that a large number if not the majority of US schools are not allowed to teach Darwinian theory, to which all rational people rightly object." [Pearce, I quoted you in total there.] I very much don't think a "large number" of schools are not allowed to teach the Darwinian theory. I'd bet the farm on that.

quote:

"fundamentalism" will disappear because it sounds too much like math.

[/QUOTE]

But, butttt, it contains the words, "fun" and "dame!" I wouldn't want them to disappear!!!

In a previous debate over the Gallup evolution-belief poll, I linked to a news story which did detail the questions. I won't go looking for it now, but it's out there and it softens the alleged results quite a bit.

But one point I'd like to make is this: that the personal beliefs of a sample in a survey, even with the numbers that Pearce quoted, do not translate automatically into an educational policy. What people believe is one thing; what they are taught in school is another. Our schools do teach evolutionary theory as part of the science curriculum. In some areas, in a few areas, this is hotly debated, but not generally.

As for how long ago American schools began teaching the theory, I'm sure it was taught in my mother's day, and she was a school girl in the 1920s. I am sure that we heard about evolution in 5th and 6th grade science class in elementary school (in the 1950s), and that was several years before Sputnik in my case. (For those in the UK, 5th and 6th grades are for 10 and 11-year-old children). When it came to 9th grade biology (13-14 year olds), we also learned about evolution and basic genetics, and dissected worms, fish, frogs. We heard about Darwin and his travels to the Galopagos and knew that we descended from apes. We knew that some of our classmates still had not fully descended from apes, too, especially the boys!

My children, who grew up in the '70s and '80s also learned about evolution in biology classes, and one took Advanced Biology and got to dissect a cat, which he named after his English teacher.

Here's a non sequitur that probably should go into the "Out of the Mouths of Babes" thread:
When my older son was 8 or 9, he came home repeating some slurs about homosexuality that he had heard from one of his friends. I said, "Do you know what 'homosexual'" means?"

"Man that walks upright?" he asked.

He had already heard about the evolution of man from apes and knew that at some point, we stopped walking on all fours, and he didn't hear that only at home or on TV; he'd also heard it at school.

That's the way it really is here, from where I sit.

Wordmatic

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:

quote:

"fundamentalism" will disappear because it sounds too much like math.

But, butttt, it contains the words, "fun" and "dame!" I wouldn't want them to disappear!!!

It also contains the word fundament.

But, butttt, it contains the words, "fun" and "dame!" I wouldn't want them to disappear!!!

Does that second but have a bunch of stuttered ts or is its vowel lengthened?

And fundamentalism has three-quarters of the word dada. Dada dada dada! I'll climb down off'n me 'obby-'orse now, pops.

quote:

Does that second but have a bunch of stuttered ts or is its vowel lengthened?

The tip of my tongue was bouncing rapidly against my upper incisors.

Now, Wordmatic, was the proper term, "Homo Erectus?" That term has always made me snicker - even at my advanced age.

Asa, also known as Homo Hapless

WM, I am going to ask you privately for those questions. Shu found one group of questions from a Gallup poll where the respondents had to say they didn't believe in God in order to be considered believers in evolution. That's absurd. No wonder the percents were so low.

I also agree, WM, that evolution is taught in all our schools. Our teachers decide on the curriculums, and teachers are liberally educated, many with graduate degrees. Now, if a parent doesn't like something, he or she may get the school board involved, and then there may be a discussion. For example, in our own community a parent went to the school board to have our Holocaust unit deleted; that particular parent didn't believe the Holocaust occurred and didn't want the kids to learn about it. Obviously, that ridiculous request was turned down. There are many examples, thoughout our country, of parents requesting evolution being taken out of the curriculum, but the parents have never won on that. Thank goodness.

Kalleh, no need to PM. It was in the thread about the Oxford entrance exams, one of the questions on which was something like, "Why do most Americans not believe in evolution?" Of course, several of us went into a tailspin over that one.


The article about the poll questions was here. Bob had another link to analyses of many polls. He said:

quote:

Just discovered this site which collects together all sorts of polls. You need to wade through it a bit but there are several relevent to this thread. The contents page (for those who want a wider selection of polls to look at) is here

.

Wordmatic

Thanks for that, Wordmatic. I can certainly understand the confusion; the questions are quite complex. I suspect interviews would work better with this type of research.

[QUOTE]Just discovered this site which collects together all sorts of polls.

Although a survey or poll of schools teaching evolution +/- creationism is not evident, this is very revealing data on US beliefs.

quote:

Although a survey or poll of schools teaching evolution +/- creationism is not evident, this is very revealing data on US beliefs.

We have discussed this and similar questions previously. There seems little doubt that religion is far more important in the USA than it is in England. We probably live in the least religious country in Europe - if not the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
We probably live in the least religious country in Europe - if not the world.

Thank God