Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

I see no evidence of a state-sponsored anti-religious marketing campaign in the U.S.

Religious organizations receive huge government subsidies, not the least of which is tax exemption.

And the fact that 75% of people in the U.S. are Christian refutes your contention that young people are exposed more to anti-religious ideologies than religious ones.

Most of those young people grew up in a religious home, after all.

Also, evolution is not an ideology any more than atomic theory is an ideology. There is nothing about evolution that inherently precludes religion.

Evolution is an ideology.

It's one on-going teleological argument without a single fact as its premise.

It's a series of presumptions based on assumptions (e.g. orthogenesis, and genetic traits.) 

Making sex an idol before God.

You said the resources of the state far outweigh the resources of a single church, implying that government resources are being used to promote non-religious ideologies. The truth is, many government resource go toward promoting religion.

Yes, and in those public schools they are exposed to other students, 75% of whom are Christian, and teachers, 75% of whom are Christian.

It means that the first, most formative years of children's lives are spent being exposed to religion. 

This is astonishingly ignorant. Not one single fact, really? No fossils, or DNA, or morphological similarity, or vestigal organs, or shared genes? None of these are facts? Genetic traits are an assumption??? I guess the fact that some people have blue eyes and children tend to look like their parents are just assumptions.

Evolution might be described as a hypothesis or a theory, but it most certainly does not qualify as an "ideology".

Please present your preferred definition of "ideology".

Evolution is the exact opposite of a teleological argument.  Survival is not a "goal" it is merely a consequence.

ORTHOGENESIS : noun Biology The hypothesis, now largely discredited, that the evolution of species is linear and driven largely by internal factors rather than by natural selection. [LINK]

Evolution is a framework of efficacious, testable predictions based on systematic scientific observations.

Please present your preferred definition of "ideology".

My definition does not matter since your argument has already operated on one which you've already selected, or is there are reason you quoted, "ideology"?

...since consequence would still imply a goal. 

Natural selection is no more substantive than orthogenesis. The only real difference is that more scientists agree with the naturalist ideology. Factual verification favors neither.

And that brings us to your description of evolution, which is just another way of stating that you're making provisional statements of fact based on that which you assume you know about your environment. 

More so than non-religious ideologies?

Let's apply a simple calculus: the first eight years of a child's life are its formative years. Let's say it's exposed to religious information once a week as is typical.

I am fairly convinced that I am fairly convinced that sexual immorality is the main reason youngsters leaving the church.

Your definition is of critical importance if we want to communicate with each other.

Consequences are inevitable regardless of intentionality.  Water does not have a "goal" of flowing downhill.  Survival is a consequence of "not dying".

Ok, hold up.  If you're in the "intelligent designer" camp, I'm 100% Deist, so we should be able to figure this out.

The theory of evolution has led us to discover genetics and we have been selectively breeding plants and animals for desirable traits (intuitively) even before that.

This is called "efficacy". 

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

And, all scientific discoveries and theories are technically "provisional" (which is a feature, not a bug).

You seem to be conflating "non-religious" with "anti-religious".

Many public schools are packed with 75% to 99% christian students and teachers.

These students and teachers are free to talk about and act according to their personal religious beliefs and set social norms.

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.

You are either ignorant or lying about exposure to religion that a child experiences in a religious household

Your definition is of critical importance if we want to communicate with each other.

Obviously it isn't, otherwise you wouldn't have asserted this, "Evolution might be described as a hypothesis or a theory, but it most certainly does not qualify as an 'ideology'" before the fact. You're arguing either all definitions of "ideology" do not fit my description, or one which you've selected in particular is operant in this discussion. (Yes, I'm busting your chops over this because it's futile to seek definition when you've already presumed one.) 

Consequences are inevitable regardless of intentionality.  Water does not have a "goal" of flowing downhill.  Survival is a consequence of "not dying".

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. 

Ok, hold up.  If you're in the "intelligent designer" camp, I'm 100% Deist, so we should be able to figure this out.

I take no position. I merely observe. Philosophically, I lean toward subjective idealism. 

The theory of evolution has led us to discover genetics and we have been selectively breeding plants and animals for desirable traits (intuitively) even before that.

Then the theory of evolution has led to what per se, since as you correctly assessed plants and animals have been bred long before modern consensus of evolutionary thought? And which discoveries of genetics inform Evolution?

More so than non-religious ideologies?

What does that have to do with anything? First, we are discussing exposure to information, not to people who's religious affiliation may or may not be made explicit. Do these children conduct daily sermons at school? No? Then your argument is irrelevant. 

Let's apply a simple calculus: the first eight years of a child's life are its formative years. Let's say it's exposed to religious information once a week as is typical. That means that over its first eight years, that child is exposed to religious information during 416 days of his or her life. Now let's be generous and presume that children typically begin state-sponsored schooling at the age of five for five days a week. That means over the first eight years of that child's life, he or she spends 780 days exposed to state sponsored ideologies, much of which occurs over a three-year span. 

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

Or it's nothing more than a gambler's fallacy. 

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

Or it's nothing more than a gambler's fallacy. 

And, all scientific discoveries and theories are technically "provisional" (which is a feature, not a bug).

All the more reason that believing in Evolution is no more "rational" than believing in god or gods. 

Can you describe what you consider the word "theory" means in the context of scientific language?''

I'm not aware of any definitions of "evolution" and "ideology" that are logically compatible.  However, I am willing to entertain your preferred definitions if you're willing to present them.'

Evolution is merely a scientific theory.  It is not a set of doctrines or ideals that people aspire to.  It is not a social group that people identify themselves by.

If you disagree, just let me know how you match up (or redefine) these terms.

So according to your glossary,

it would seem, "survival is a phenomenon associated with not dying". 

It is not a "goal" and doesn't need to be. 

Bacteria have no goals.

 Survival and reproduction are characteristics of plants and insects, and they also have no goals.

  Adding "intentionality" does not explain anything better than "unintentionality".