Discussion:
From Progressive Europe: Church Of England Forced To Apologise To Darwin
(too old to reply)
Sound of Trumpet
2009-12-22 08:34:50 UTC
Permalink
From Progressive Europe: Church Of England Forced To Apologise To
Darwin


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2376716/posts


Church of England apologises to Darwin (bows to Temple of Darwin)

CMI ^ | October 28, 2009 | Jonathan Safarti, Ph.D.

Posted on 02 November 2009 19:47:44 by GodGunsGuts

This weekend’s feedback is in response to a number of queries about
the Church of England (Anglicans) officially apologizing to Darwin.
However, they don’t speak for all attenders of this church, since many
of them are still faithful to Scripture and are appalled by their
‘leaders’. There are numerous mistakes in the article by the official
CoE representative, a Rev. Dr Malcolm Brown, on the official CoE
website, and Jonathan Sarfati replies point-by-point.

Good religion needs good science

by Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs
Church of England

The trouble with homo sapiens is that we’re only human. People,
and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are
no exception.

Indeed, as the CoE has officially shown with this craven apology—as if
apologies for the past are meaningful, given that both Darwin and
those who allegedly wronged him are long dead. And who does he really
speak for? Certainly not the large numbers of Anglicans who still
believe the Bible.

When a big new idea emerges which changes the way people look at
the world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is
under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.

Such superficial psychologization may be touching, but in reality,
philosopher Daniel Dennett calls Darwinism a universal acid that ‘eats
through virtually every traditional concept’—mankind’s most cherished
beliefs about God, value, meaning, purpose, culture, morality—
everything.

The church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and has
since realised its error.

The church indeed made a mistake with Galileo … adopting the prevaling
scientific framework of the University Aristotelians, and adjusting
their theology to fit.

It can get tedious to see compromising churchians trot out the Galileo
affair as an excuse for their compromise. The church indeed made a
mistake with Galileo, but exactly the opposite of what Brown thinks.
The church’s trouble was adopting the prevailing scientific framework
of the University Aristotelians, and adjusting their theology to fit.
When Galileo challenged the prevailing scientific framework, his
scientific enemies persuaded the Church that he was attacking the
Bible, which he was not. See:

* The Galileo twist
* The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
* ID theorist blunders on Bible: The Galileo excuse

Some church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin’s
theory of natural selection.

Some did, i.e. refused to make the same mistake as the Church in
Galileo’s day, of marrying their theology to the current scientific
fad, which merely results in widowhood in the next generation. But far
too many appeased Darwin, with the same disastrous effects as
Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler 70 years ago.

Note that natural selection is not Darwin’s theory; it was discussed
by the creationist, Edward Blyth, and today is an important part of
the creation model. Natural selection has nothing to do with turning
moths into motorists or bacteria into biologists, because the changes
are in the wrong direction, i.e. removing information instead of
adding it as goo-to-you evolution requires.

So it is important to think again about Darwin’s impact on
religious thinking, then and now—and the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth
in 1809 is a good time to do so.

We quite agree—hence our international ‘Challenging Darwin in 2009‘
documentary film project.

Theories raised moral questions

But if Darwin’s ideas once needed rescuing from religious
defensiveness, they may also now need rescuing from some of the
enthusiasts for his ideas. A scientist has a duty to the truth: he or
she is called to be fearless in discovering the way the world works.

Indeed. But so often, Darwinians accept materialism as a dogma (like
Richard Lewontin) or as ‘rules of the game‘, so reject a design
explanation a priori even if all the evidence supports it (like Scott
Todd).

But how a scientific theory is used, and the ways in which ideas
can be deployed politically or ideologically, are the responsibility
of a less easily defined constituency. ‘Darwinism’ has become
something bigger than Darwin’s own theories, and raises many moral
questions. This doesn’t make the church of the 1860s right to have
attacked Darwin, but it does suggest that the question is deeper than
deciding whose side you would have been on in that historic debate
between Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and Darwin’s supporter,
Thomas Huxley.

It would help to separate the facts from the myth about this as well.

Nothing in scientific method contradicts Christian teaching

We agree. Indeed, the founders of modern science were creationists,
while science doesn’t need goo-to-you evolution.

Darwin was, in many ways, a model of good scientific method. He
observed the world around him, developed a theory which sought to
explain what he saw, and then set about a long and painstaking process
of gathering evidence that would either bear out, contradict, or
modify his theory.

This is simplistic—see also Darwin and the search for an evolutionary
mechanism, which shows the historical and philosophical influences on
Darwin’s ostensibly scientific theory. However, Darwin did largely
follow some erroneous methods of Francis Bacon, an errant creationist.

As a result, our understanding of the world is expanded,

Certainly, Darwin’s research on the role of earthworms in soil was a
great contribution, as were his meticulous studies on carnivorous
plants and barnacles, and could truly have said to expanded our
understanding. But when it came to evolution, even many evolutionists
admit that his book went way beyond the evidence. For example, one of
his highly qualified contemporaries, Professor Johann H. Blasius,
director of the Duke’s Natural History Museum of Braunschweig
(Brunswick), Germany, was highly critical:

I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-
ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them.—Museum director
Dr Johann Blasius on Darwin’s recently released Origin.

‘I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-
ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them. … Darwin wants
to show that Arten [types, kinds, species] come from other Arten. I
regard this as somewhat of a highhanded hypothesis, because he argues
using unproven possibilities, without even naming a single example of
the origin of a particular species.’

but the scientific process continues. In science, hypotheses are
meant to be constantly tested. Subsequent generations have built on
Darwin’s work but have not significantly undermined his fundamental
theory of natural selection.

Why would we want to undermine natural selection? We would merely want
to undermine the additional claim that it is a creative force rather
than a culling force.

There is nothing here that contradicts Christian teaching.

Unless Christian teaching is divorced from Christ’s! He clearly taught
that ‘Scripture cannot be broken’, and said, ‘it is written’ to settle
an argument—for Jesus, Scripture said = God said . He affirmed the
special creation of man and woman ‘from the beginning of
creation’ (not billions of years later, from pond scum via the animal
kingdom), and the global Flood, as well as other Scriptures that
skeptics love to mock.

Jesus himself invited people to observe the world around them and
to reason from what they saw to an understanding of the nature of God
(Matthew 6:25–33).

So our Rev. Dr decides that he does believe some of the Scriptures—a
cafeteria Christian who decides which parts of the biblical ‘menu’ he
likes. But Jesus never told people to reason in a way that
contradicted ‘it is written … ’.

Christian theologians throughout the centuries have sought
knowledge of the world and knowledge of God.

Indeed, but their priorities are different from the Rev. Dr Brown’s.
Because of Adam’s sin, the creation is cursed (Genesis 3:17–19, Romans
8:20–22), man’s heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and the thinking of
a godless man is ‘futile’ (Romans 1:21). But although Scripture was
penned by fallen humans, these humans were moved by the Holy Spirit,
so Scripture itself is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:15–17). Therefore,
Scripture is the only source of revelation not tainted by the Fall.

So a biblical Christian should not reinterpret the perfect, unfallen
Word of God according to fallible theories of sinful humans about a
world we know to be cursed. As the systematic theologian Louis Berkhof
approvingly explained about the views of some leading Reformed
theologians:

‘… Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true
knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it
in the light of Scripture, in which the elements of God’s original
self-revelation, which were obscured and perverted by the blight of
sin, are republished, corrected, and interpreted.’1

Berkhof’s own view was:

‘Some are inclined to speak of God’s general revelation as a
second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that
nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the
light of Scripture.’2

For Thomas Aquinas there was no such thing as science versus
religion; both existed in the same sphere and to the same end, the
glory of God.

Note that Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) agreed with six-day creation, as
shown in his classic Summa Theologica (or Theologia):3

Thus we find it said at first that ‘He called the light Day’: for
the reason that later on a period of twenty-four hours is also called
day, where it is said that ‘there was evening and morning, one day.’ 4

‘He called the light Day’: for the reason that later on a period
of twenty-four hours is also called day, where it is said that ‘there
was evening and morning, one day.’ … The words ‘one day’ are used when
day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-
four hours.—Thomas Aquinas

Nothing entirely new was afterwards made by God, but all things
subsequently made had in a sense been made before in the work of the
six days. Some things, indeed, had a previous experience materially,
as the rib from the side of Adam out of which God formed Eve; whilst
others existed not only in matter but also in their causes, as those
individual creatures that are now generated existed in the first of
their kind.5

Whether all these days are one day?


On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1), ‘The evening and the
morning were the second day … the third day,’ and so on. But where
there is a second and third there are more than one. There was not,
therefore, only one day.

I answer that, On this question Augustine differs from other
expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven,
are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect (Gen. AD lit. iv, 22; De
Civ. Dei xi, 9; AD Orosium xxvi); while others consider there were
seven distinct days, not one only. Now, these two opinions, taken as
explaining the literal text of Genesis, are certainly widely
different.



Reply to Objection 7. The words ‘one day’ are used when day is
first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four
hours. Hence, by mentioning ‘one’, the measure of a natural day is
fixed. Another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the
return of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course. And
yet another, because at the completion of a week of seven days, the
first day returns which is one with the eighth day. The three reasons
assigned above are those given by Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.).6

And Aquinas is hardly an isolated example. Most biblical scholars
before the rise of long-age geology accepted Genesis as written,
including Josephus and later Jewish scholars, most church fathers
including Basil the Great, and all the Reformers including Luther and
Calvin.

Whilst Christians believe that the Bible contains all that we need
to know to be saved from our sins, they do not claim that it is a
compendium of all knowledge.

This is so. Francis Schaeffer pointed out that the Bible is ‘true
truth’ but not exhaustive truth. But our Rev. Dr disbelieves the
former.

Jesus himself warned his disciples that there was more that he
could say to them and that the Spirit of truth would lead them into
truth (John 16:12–13).

Yes, but the Spirit of Truth would not contradict what He had already
revealed in Scripture; evolution most certainly does, as shown in the
articles under Why is evolution so dangerous for Christians to
believe?

There is no reason to doubt that Christ still draws people towards
truth through the work of scientists as well as others, and many
scientists are motivated in their work by a perception of the deep
beauty of the created world.

Indeed, there are many highly qualified scientists who believe the
Bible as written, such as Dr Raymond Damadian, one of the leading
pioneers of MRI. Every issue of Creation magazine features one (and of
course is edited by a number of such scientists).

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that scientific theories can
be overtaken in their turn even as old ideas prove to have an enduring
quality. Most of us get by with some version of Newtonian physics and
understand little of Quantum Theory. Newtonian ideas suffice for most
of our everyday needs—but we now know that we can’t push them too far
as there is plenty that they do not adequately explain.

This is true. Similarly, Newtonian physics was replaced by Einsteinian
relativity for very high speeds, and this in turn seems likely to be
replaced by Carmelian relativity.

But all these examples concern operational or observational science,
while Darwinian evolution concerns origins/historical/inferential
science (see Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science).

Reaction now seems misguided

Darwin’s meticulous application of the principles of evidence-
based research was not the problem.

Yet as shown above, he went way beyond the evidence.

His theory caused offence because it challenged the view that God
had created human beings as an entirely different kind of creation to
the rest of the animal world.

It contradicted the clear biblical teaching that God did make man as a
separate creation, to have dominion. Denying this has led to absurd
elevations of animals as deserving of ‘human’ rights—see Going ape
about human rights: Are monkeys people, too? And many of the loudest
supporters of such ideas, such as the antitheistic evolutionist Peter
Singer, downgrade humans, to promote bestiality, infanticide and
euthanasia—see Bioethicists and Obama agree: infanticide should be
legal.

But whilst it is not difficult to see why evolutionary thinking
was offensive at the time, on reflection it is not such an earth-
shattering idea.

The church had already appeased secularism when it came to geological
history. … This appeasement enabled Darwin to link slow and gradual
geological processes with slow and gradual biological processes.

And even at the time, the church had already appeased secularism when
it came to geological history. That is, they had abandoned Scripture
on the history of the earth in favour of the uniformitarian dogma of
Hutton and Lyell, ignoring the scientific problems and spiritual
warnings of the Scriptural Geologists.

This appeasement enabled Darwin to link slow and gradual geological
processes with slow and gradual biological processes. Worse, the long
ages implied that the fossil record showed creatures suffering and
dying for millions of years of death and suffering, rather than as a
result of the Fall. So Darwin rejected the inconsistency of this
notion of God using millions of years of death and suffering to bring
about a ‘very good’ creation (Genesis 1:31), especially as death is
called ‘the wages of sin’ (Romans 6:23) and ‘the last enemy’ (1
Corinthians 15:26).

This rejection was poignant when Darwin lost his daughter Annie to a
disease, because the prevailing appeasement doctrine implied that such
disease-causing features were ‘very good’. The problem of harmful
creatures has bothered later apostates like Charles Templeton.

This is a blind spot among both theistic evolutionists and long-age
creationists—who believe basically the same as those appeasers in
Darwin’s day who were so ineffective. And our Rev. Dr really is
clueless about this key objection to marrying Darwinism with
Christianity—the biblical teaching that death came through sin.

The proper answer is that the fossils were largely caused by the
Flood, while harmful features and behaviours are the result of the
Fall, as explained in How did bad things come about? from the Creation
Answers Book.

Yes, Christians believe that God became incarnate as a human being
in the person of Jesus and thereby demonstrated God’s especial love
for humanity. But how can that special relationship be undermined just
because we develop a different understanding of the processes by which
humanity came to be?

Isaiah spoke of this coming Messiah as literally the ‘Kinsman-
Redeemer’ … without the common descent of all mankind from Adam, this
vital kinsman-redeemer concept collapses.

That’s not hard to answer. Luke tells us that Jesus was a descendant
of a real historical first man, Adam (Luke 3:23–38)—so the Apostle
Paul calls Him ‘the Last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45). This is vital,
because Isaiah spoke of this coming Messiah as literally the ‘Kinsman-
Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isa.
59:20, which uses the same Hebrew word ???? (gôel) as is used to
describe Boaz in relation to Ruth). The Book of Hebrews also explains
how Jesus took upon Himself the nature of a man to save mankind, but
not angels (Heb. 2:11–18). But without the common descent of all
mankind from Adam, this vital kinsman-redeemer concept collapses.

Thus Darwinism and millions of years have baneful implications for the
Australian Aborigines: if they have been here for 40,000 years, they
can’t have come from Adam, which means they can’t be saved by the
Kinsman-Redeemer, the Last Adam. See also an article about another
apology, discussing the problems with such evolutionary teachings. And
the Rev. Dr Brown had a Darwin-admiring predecessor in the CoE,
clergyman Charles Kingsley, who wrote:

‘The Black People of Australia, exactly the same race as the
African Negro, cannot take in the Gospel … All attempts to bring them
to a knowledge of the true God have as yet failed utterly … Poor
brutes in human shape … they must perish off the face of the earth
like brute beasts.’

Secular Darwinists were even worse, snatching Aboriginal people as
specimens of ‘missing links’ for museum displays (see Darwin’s
bodysnatchers: new horrors)

It is hard to avoid the thought that the reaction against Darwin
was largely based on what we would now call the ‘yuk factor’ (an
emotional not an intellectual response) when he proposed a lineage
from apes to humans.

Does it matter what our Rev. Dr thinks is the reason? I have provided
the scriptural reasons. Elsewhere I have counselled against emotional
appeals to ‘yuk factor’ arguments.

But for all that the reaction now seems misjudged, it may just be
that Wilberforce and others glimpsed a murky image of how Darwin’s
theories might be misappropriated and the harm they could do (see the
section Darwin and the Church).

Which section is grossly misleading about Darwin’s views about
Christianity—see Darwin’s arguments against God: How Darwin rejected
the doctrines of Christianity.

Even if they were blind to the future, it remains that the legacy
of Darwin (rather than Darwin’s own achievements) has had a shadow
side.

Social misapplication of Darwin

Who says it’s a misapplication?

If evolution is continuing, and humanity as we know it is not the
final summation of the process, it is not difficult to slip into a
rather naive optimism which sees the human race becoming better and
better all the time. Despite our vastly expanding technical knowledge,
even a fairly cursory review of human history undermines any idea of
constant moral progress.

Of course. And the decline in following absolute moral law is hardly
surprising when scientistic elites and their churchian allies
undermine belief in an absolute moral Lawgiver who has revealed His
law in the Bible. One excellent treatment of the way morals have
declined because of a faulty worldview is contained in the book The
Vision of the Anointed by Dr Thomas Sowell. This does not come from a
Christian perspective, but he points out the fallacy of assuming the
perfectibility of humans through human effort, and ignoring the
inherent imperfection of mankind, which Christians would attribute to
the Fall, a teaching undermined by Darwin.

Humanity’s advance in terms of technical prowess and achievements
has not, to most people’s eyes, fully liberated us from our burdens.
Christians believe that all of us are constrained by sin and that only
through the death and resurrection of Jesus can we move beyond what
constrains us, to a fuller and more human way of living.

Indeed, although one must wonder what he means by these things;
liberals are fond of double-speak to hide what they really believe.

But Christians are not the only ones who are sceptical of the idea
that evolution means moral progress.

Mainly because the failures of Darwin-based Nazism and Communism
showed how disastrous it was to try to create a paradise on Earth by
sacrificing humans in the way.

Natural selection, as a way of understanding physical evolutionary
processes over thousands of years, makes sense. Translate that into a
half-understood notion of ‘the survival of the fittest’ and imagine
the processes working on a day-to-day basis, and evolution gets mixed
up with a social theory in which the weak perish—the very opposite of
the Christian vision in the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55).

Yet this Rev. Dr says that God created in a diametrically opposed way
to that revealed in this self-same Christian vision. The atheist
Jacques Monod was not impressed:

The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible
process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. … I am
surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the
process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.—
Atheistic evolutionist Jacques Monod

‘The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of
destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a
horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An
ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is
protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law.
I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the
process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution
(emphasis added).’

This ‘Social Darwinism’, in which the strong flourish and losers
go to the wall is, moreover, the complete converse of what Darwin
himself believed about human relationships.

Has this Rev. Dr even read Darwin? As we show in Darwin was indeed a
Social Darwinist , anti-creationist Peter Quinn pointed out:

‘Sounding more like Colonel Blimp than Lieutenant Columbo, Darwin
envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than
the Anglo-Saxon. “At some future period, not very distant as measured
by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly
exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,” he
predicts. “At the same time the anthropological apes … will no doubt
be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will
then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized
state … even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”’

From this social misapplication of Darwin’s theories has sprung
insidious forms of racism and other forms of discrimination which are
more horribly potent for having the appearance of scientific “truth”
behind them.

Eugenics was invented by Darwin’s first cousin, Francis Galton, who
justified it by Darwin’s evolutionism. … Darwin’s son Leonard gave the
presidential address at the First International Congress of Eugenics.

It is hardly an accident that such widely dispersed cultures as
Germany and America could come up with similar applications of
Darwinism: America’s racist eugenics program, and the Nazi undermining
of sanctity of human life, eugenics and the Holocaust. Note that
eugenics was invented by Darwin’s first cousin, Francis Galton, who
justified it by Darwin’s evolutionism. And in 1912, Darwin’s son
Leonard gave the presidential address at the First International
Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial
biologists from Germany, the United States.

Darwin’s immense achievement was to develop a big theory which
went a long way to explaining aspects of the world around us. But to
treat it as an all-embracing theory of everything is to travesty
Darwin’s work. The difficulty is that his theory of natural selection
has been so effective within the scientific community, and so easily
understood in outline by everybody, that it has been inflated into a
general theory of everything—which is not only erroneous but
dangerous.

The real travesty is the willingness of so many churchians to embrace
Darwin’s hypothesis, ignoring the clear evidence of design and
Darwinism’s inability to explain the encyclopedic quantities of
information in all living creatures, and abandon Scripture.

Capacity to love consistent with Darwin

Christians will want to stress, instead, the human capacity for
love, for altruism, and for self-sacrifice. There is nothing here
which, in principle, contradicts Darwin’s theory.

Photo Julia Margaret Cameron, wikipedia.org
Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin, photographed by Julia Margaret Cameron

No, but Darwinian theory would explain this as the result of
selfishness, either among creatures or genes—see Altruism and kin
selection .

Humanity has acquired the capacity to reflect, to imagine, and to
reason from what is known to what is not yet known. Some animals may
have these features in a very rudimentary form, but the human capacity
is so much greater as to be effectively unique. It is our capacity to
imagine other people as more than bodies, but as persons, which marks
us out. It is that, above all, which has enabled the human mind and
will to achieve so much. And if this capacity—which we can
characterise as the capacity for love—is consistent with Darwin’s
ideas of natural selection, it suggests that our capacity as a species
to act in ways which appear to be against our personal interests has,
paradoxically, enabled us to survive as “fitted” to our context and
environment.

But then there is no objective reason for unselfishness, given that it
can be only an illusion that really fosters an underlying selfishness.

So the pseudo-Darwinian reductionism, which elevates selfishness
into a virtue and celebrates power and dominance, is not only a
misunderstanding of Darwin but may even contribute to human decline by
eroding those aspects of being human which have given us such a
natural advantage.

Hardly a ‘misunderstanding’: selfishness is at the root of Darwinism;
treating altruism as a means to an end does nothing to soften it.

Even the more sophisticated versions of ‘Social Darwinism’, which
interpret all human behaviour in terms of the struggle for dominance
and the maximisation of genetic advantage through the generations,
risk presenting us with an image of being human which makes us slaves
to some kind of evolutionary imperative, as if we are programmed in
ways we cannot over-rule. But the point of natural selection is that
it is precisely by being most fully human that we demonstrate our
fitness. And being fully human means refusing to abdicate our ability
to act selflessly or lovingly and to challenge thin concepts of
rationality which equate “being rational” to material self interest.

But Darwinism can select only for survival value, not for altruism per
se. It also can’t provide any basis for calling unselfishness
objectively good and selfishness objectively wrong; all it can do is
assess their selective advantages.

It is vital that Darwin’s theories are rescued from political and
ideological agendas that are more about controlling human imagination
and unpredictability than about good science.

Translation: Darwinism should be sugar-coated to hide its real evils
from unsuspecting churchgoers and parents.

Discerning where culture threatens Christianity

All that I have said so far will remain contentious in some
circles. Some Christian movements still make opposition to
evolutionary theories a litmus test of faithfulness and—the other side
of the coin—many believe Darwin’s theories to have fatally undermined
religious belief and therefore reject any accommodation of one by the
other. Why should this be?

Because they really are incompatible, despite the political waffling
by compromisers. Note that we don’t claim that one can’t be a
Christian and a biblical errantist (or evolutionist or long-ager).
Many people are saved despite ‘blessed inconsistency’—there is no hint
in the Bible that the ability to hold mutually contrary thoughts in
the same skull is an unforgivable sin. People are saved by grace
through faith, not by works (Eph. 2:8–9), and the content of this
saving faith is that Jesus Christ, the God-man, died for our sins, was
buried and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:1–4). See also:

* Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist? A leading
creationist answers an often-asked question
* The big picture: Being wrong about the six days of creation does
not automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think
that makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture.
* Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?

The Church of England in 1860 was already facing challenges to its
former pre-eminence. Freethinking and non-conformist Christianity were
confronting the power of the established church—and then came Darwin.
These were nervous times for Anglicans, and when worldly power is
thought of as God-given, threats to power are perceived as attacks on
God. What was true for Anglicans in 1860 is largely true for all kinds
of Christians today, although (depending where you are in the world)
the threat may be perceived to come from radical Islam, secularism,
consumerism or atheism.

Photo Brian G. Bukowski, wikipedia.org
Archbishop of Canterbury

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury

This doesn’t apply to those churches not connected with the State. But
it’s notable that many evolutionized clergy not only have appeased
secularism but also appeased radical Islam: the leading cleric in the
CoE, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated earlier this
year that adoption of sharia law in the UK seems unavoidable . Then in
the manner of liberals everywhere, he claimed that he had been
misunderstood.

The cultures within which Christians try to be faithful are widely
seen to be hostile, at least in some respects, and discipleship means,
at some level, standing against some social trends. The problem for
all Christians is discerning where the surrounding culture is really a
threat and where it is compatible with our understanding of God.

This much is true: but the means for discernment should be comparison
with God’s written Word, the Bible. What does the Rev. Dr offer but
the shifting sands of episcopal opinion?

Because “science” has been widely regarded as offering a total
theory of everything; because some scientists have encouraged this
claim; perhaps because we all know how reliant we are on scientific
ideas which we barely understand and which make us nervous of our
ignorance; and perhaps because the churches have not been good at
equipping people to see God at work in the contemporary world—

How about, the appeasement of much of the church to secularism and
failure to equip their flock with reasons for their faith (1 Peter
3:15) and ways to demolish opposing arguments (2 Corinthians 1-:4–5).

for all these reasons and others, a parody of science has become a
focus for certain forms of social unease. In so far as the practice of
science has its hubristic side, there is a case for science to
answer.

But why should they? The church has already appeased secularists about
world history, so why shouldn’t they wait for further appeasement? For
example, secularists claim that dead men don’t rise and virgins don’t
conceive, and that miracles are impossible, so should we appease them
by denying the bodily Resurrection, Virginal Conception, and miracles
of Christ? And in the areas of morality, some evolutionists claim that
homosexual behaviour and adultery are in the genes, so should we throw
out biblical morality as well? Actually, a number of ministers in the
CoE (and certain other denominations) have ‘reasoned’ precisely this
way, such as the former American Episcopalian bishop John Shelby
Spong.

In so far as ‘Social Darwinism’ has diminished our sense of being
human and being in relationships, there are real problems to address.
But first it is important to recognise that the anti-evolutionary
fervour in some corners of the churches may be a kind of proxy issue
for other discontents; and, perhaps most of all, an indictment of the
churches’ failure to tell their own story—Jesus’s story

But in the Rev. Dr’s case, ignoring the parts that contradict his
seeming idol of Darwinism. But Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘I
have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then
will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ If Jesus was wrong
about earthly things (like a recent creation and a global flood, as
above), was He also wrong about a heavenly thing like John 3:16, only
four verses later? If not, why not?

—with conviction in a way which works with the grain of the world
as God has revealed it to be, both through the Bible and in the work
of scientists of Darwin’s calibre.

God doesn’t contradict Himself, so real science will back up the
Bible.

Rapproachment [sic] between Darwin and Christian faith

At a university in Kansas, I asked a biology professor how he
coped with teaching Darwin’s theories to students whose churches
insisted that evolution was heresy and whose schools taught
creationism. “No problem,” he replied, “the kids know that if they
want a good job they need a degree, and if they want a degree they
have to work with evolution theory.

Yet some have whinged that the movie Expelled was lying about the
overt discrimination practiced against creationists. Indeed, even
evolutionists who even so much as suggest that creation should be
discussed in school science classes have lost their jobs, such as the
Royal Society’s director of education, Rev. Professor Michael Reiss a
few days ago (see Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on
evolution).

The leading misotheist Richard Dawkins has no time for those who try
to marry evolution with Christianity, saying:

‘Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever
symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and
executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual. Nobody not
brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking
mad!’

I.e. he has as much contempt for churchian appeasers of evolution as
Hitler had for Chamberlain.

Creationism is for church, as far as they’re concerned. Here,
they’re Darwinists.” Perhaps he was over-cynical.

Or deceitful, like evolutionary educrat Bora Zivkovic, who bragged
about misleading students about this ‘non-overlapping
magisteria’ (NOMA7) view:

Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust.
You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then
hold their hands and help them step by step. … Better NOMA-believers
than Creationists, don’t you think?—

But he was also pointing to young lives which could not be lived
with integrity—the very opposite of how Christians are called to live.
There is no integrity to be found either in rejecting Darwin’s ideas
wholesale or in elevating them into the kind of grand theory which
reduces humanity to the sum of our evolutionary urges. For the sake of
human integrity—and thus for the sake of good Christian living—some
rapprochement between Darwin and Christian faith is essential.

Rather, real integrity comes from accepting the Bible as true—
including the history that underpins faith and morality. The real
double-mindedness comes from trying to hold mutually contradictory
ideas in the same skull, as one of CMI’s Ph.D. biologists, Dr Don
Batten explains.

And now comes the pathetic apology:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England
owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first
reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try
to practice the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope
that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not
over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but
those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good
religion needs to work constructively with good science—and I dare to
suggest that the opposite may be true as well.

On a lighter note, but very relevant to this sad situation, we believe
that most visitors to this page, including our many C of E/Anglican
friends and supporters, will appreciate the satire of the Church of
England’s accommodation of liberalism in the episode ‘The Bishop’s
Gambit’ (1986) from the classic British comedy series Yes, Prime
Minister (in four parts). No, we are not thereby endorsing everything
in that clip, or series, or any other secular item we might refer to,
but it is interesting to note that the ‘world’ can sometimes see
things more clearly than we think.
Erwin Moller
2009-12-22 08:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Mr Trumpet,

You write waaaay too much and it is mostly lies.
I stop reading your nonsense.

You also don't have the balls to defend your false claims.
You are just a spamming troll.

Erwin Moller
The Doctor
2009-12-22 15:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Mr Trumpet,
You write waaaay too much and it is mostly lies.
I stop reading your nonsense.
You also don't have the balls to defend your false claims.
You are just a spamming troll.
Erwin Moller
Someone misspelled Regressive.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
Jon Schild
2009-12-22 13:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
From Progressive Europe: Church Of England Forced To Apologise To
Darwin
http://[snipped]
Church of England apologises to Darwin (bows to Temple of Darwin)
CMI ^ | October 28, 2009 | Jonathan Safarti, Ph.D.
Posted on 02 November 2009 19:47:44 by GodGunsGuts
This weekend’s feedback is in response to a number of queries about
the Church of England (Anglicans) officially apologizing to Darwin.
However, they don’t speak for all attenders of this church, since many
of them are still faithful to Scripture and are appalled by their
‘leaders’. There are numerous mistakes in the article
That's OK. Your own headline is a mistake (or an outright lie). They
apologized for the hateful way they treated him, and there was no force
involved.
Smiler
2009-12-23 04:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
From Progressive Europe: Church Of England Forced To Apologise To
Darwin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2376716/posts
Church of England apologises to Darwin (bows to Temple of Darwin)
CMI ^ | October 28, 2009 | Jonathan Safarti, Ph.D.
Posted on 02 November 2009 19:47:44 by GodGunsGuts
This weekend’s feedback is in response to a number of queries about
the Church of England (Anglicans) officially apologizing to Darwin.
However, they don’t speak for all attenders of this church, since many
of them are still faithful to Scripture and are appalled by their
‘leaders’. There are numerous mistakes in the article by the official
CoE representative, a Rev. Dr Malcolm Brown, on the official CoE
website, and Jonathan Sarfati replies point-by-point.
Good religion needs good science
by Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs
Church of England
The trouble with homo sapiens is that we’re only human. People,
and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are
no exception.
Indeed, as the CoE has officially shown with this craven apology—as if
apologies for the past are meaningful, given that both Darwin and
those who allegedly wronged him are long dead. And who does he really
speak for? Certainly not the large numbers of Anglicans who still
believe the Bible.
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.

<Snip several hundred lines of lies and religious bullshit.>
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
thomas p.
2009-12-23 08:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Sound of Trumpet
From Progressive Europe: Church Of England Forced To Apologise To
Darwin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2376716/posts
Church of England apologises to Darwin (bows to Temple of Darwin)
CMI ^ | October 28, 2009 | Jonathan Safarti, Ph.D.
Posted on 02 November 2009 19:47:44 by GodGunsGuts
This weekend's feedback is in response to a number of queries about
the Church of England (Anglicans) officially apologizing to Darwin.
However, they don't speak for all attenders of this church, since many
of them are still faithful to Scripture and are appalled by their
'leaders'. There are numerous mistakes in the article by the official
CoE representative, a Rev. Dr Malcolm Brown, on the official CoE
website, and Jonathan Sarfati replies point-by-point.
Good religion needs good science
by Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs
Church of England
The trouble with homo sapiens is that we're only human. People,
and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are
no exception.
Indeed, as the CoE has officially shown with this craven apology-as if
apologies for the past are meaningful, given that both Darwin and
those who allegedly wronged him are long dead. And who does he really
speak for? Certainly not the large numbers of Anglicans who still
believe the Bible.
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services
are regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that
will be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
Furthermore it seems doubtful to me that a large percentage of the members
who
are left are fundamentalists who reject evolution.
Post by Smiler
<Snip several hundred lines of lies and religious bullshit.>
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Jimbo
2009-12-23 13:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Sound of Trumpet
From Progressive Europe: Church Of England Forced To Apologise To
Darwin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2376716/posts
Church of England apologises to Darwin (bows to Temple of Darwin)
CMI ^ | October 28, 2009 | Jonathan Safarti, Ph.D.
Posted on 02 November 2009 19:47:44 by GodGunsGuts
This weekend’s feedback is in response to a number of queries about
the Church of England (Anglicans) officially apologizing to Darwin.
However, they don’t speak for all attenders of this church, since many
of them are still faithful to Scripture and are appalled by their
‘leaders’. There are numerous mistakes in the article by the official
CoE representative, a Rev. Dr Malcolm Brown, on the official CoE
website, and Jonathan Sarfati replies point-by-point.
    Good religion needs good science
    by Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs
Church of England
    The trouble with homo sapiens is that we’re only human. People,
and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and churches are
no exception.
Indeed, as the CoE has officially shown with this craven apology—as if
apologies for the past are meaningful, given that both Darwin and
those who allegedly wronged him are long dead. And who does he really
speak for? Certainly not the large numbers of Anglicans who still
believe the Bible.
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
<Snip several hundred lines of lies and religious bullshit.>
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That's what happens when your mentality is still 12th Century, trying
to appeal to 21st Century peoples.
f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
2009-12-23 14:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E. There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
thomas p.
2009-12-23 16:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E. There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
Bingo is a holy and sacred part of Catholic belief. I spent several years
setting up
for the weekly games and working during them. The participants were very
devoted
as they prayed over their cards. They might have missed Mass but never
Bingo.
Free Lunch
2009-12-23 18:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E. There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
As I recall, there's no need to be a believer to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
Christopher A. Lee
2009-12-23 18:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E. There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
As I recall, there's no need to be a believer to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
My sister (in England) married a church-goer so she goes with him even
though she's atheist.
John Ritson
2009-12-24 16:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Free Lunch
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E. There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
As I recall, there's no need to be a believer to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
My sister (in England) married a church-goer so she goes with him even
though she's atheist.
According to the "Reverend Professor Peter John Gomes, Plummer Professor
of Christian Morals" from Harvard who visited Emmanuel College,
Cambridge (founded to train Puritan ministers), he was introduced to the
Vice-Master, who said "You know, our Dean doesn't believe in God. I
don't believe in God either, but he's paid to believe in God."
--
John Ritson
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.or­g
2009-12-26 23:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ritson
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Free Lunch
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E. There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
As I recall, there's no need to be a believer to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
My sister (in England) married a church-goer so she goes with him even
though she's atheist.
According to the "Reverend Professor Peter John Gomes, Plummer Professor
of Christian Morals" from Harvard who visited Emmanuel College,
Cambridge (founded to train Puritan ministers), he was introduced to the
Vice-Master, who said "You know, our Dean doesn't believe in God. I
don't believe in God either, but he's paid to believe in God."
But what kind of Vice is the Vice-Master paid for?

As for the previous point, I wonder if you're thinking of David
Jenkins, Bishop of Durham 1984-1994 according to Wikipedia. He wasn't
Archbishop of Canterbury.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/393479.stm>
Masked Avenger
2009-12-24 09:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Free Lunch
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E. There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
As I recall, there's no need to be a believer to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
There's a brilliant episode of 'Yes,Prime Minister' that covers that
very topic .....
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....

Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein

Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Andre Lieven
2009-12-25 22:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masked Avenger
Post by Free Lunch
Post by f***@mail.croydon.ac.uk
Post by Smiler
There is no 'large number of Anglicans' left in England. Sunday services are
regularly attended by less than 4% of the population and by 2020 that will
be down to less than 2%. These figures are the CoE's own estimates.
The situation may be even worse than that, from the point of view of
the C of E.  There are people who do regularly attend church, but do
not believe; they just treat it as a sort of social club, a bit like
going to bingo.
As I recall, there's no need to be a believer to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
There's a brilliant episode of 'Yes,Prime Minister' that covers that
very topic .....
The Bishop's Gambit, episode 7 of series 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bishop%27s_Gambit

Brilliant series.

Andre
Franco
2009-12-23 04:18:43 UTC
Permalink
The Church of Rome apologized to Galileo too, but Sound of Trumpet
probably disagrees with that as well.
Quadibloc
2009-12-23 05:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franco
The Church of Rome apologized to Galileo too, but Sound of Trumpet
probably disagrees with that as well.
The article quoted noted that it was Aristotle who was wrong, and the
Roman Catholic Church made a mistake accepting Aristotle - just like
the Anglican Church is making one now in accepting Darwin. (The way it
phrases things, though, it conflates the two denominations.)

John Savard
Free Lunch
2009-12-23 13:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Franco
The Church of Rome apologized to Galileo too, but Sound of Trumpet
probably disagrees with that as well.
The article quoted noted that it was Aristotle who was wrong, and the
Roman Catholic Church made a mistake accepting Aristotle - just like
the Anglican Church is making one now in accepting Darwin. (The way it
phrases things, though, it conflates the two denominations.)
False analogies are just another way to pass on a falsehood.
Jimbo
2009-12-23 13:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franco
The Church of Rome apologized to Galileo too, but Sound of Trumpet
probably disagrees with that as well.
The "Church of Rome" has a WHOOOOOLLLLEEE lot more crap they need to
apologize for, and by apologize, I mean spend time in prison for.
Robert Carnegie
2009-12-25 01:42:42 UTC
Permalink
I'd like to help out those who, like me, were rather baffled by a
report of the Church Of England suddenly "apologizing" to Charles
Darwin, or having a need to do so. They buried him honourably, for
instance - and almost certainly weren't responsible for his death.

It appears that what happened, happened in September 2008, and
consisted of setting up this section of the C of E web site, I assume
as you see it now (if it hasn't been hacked while I write), and then
some British newspapers getting hugely excited about it:
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/>

And in particular this article by the "Director of Mission and Public
Affairs", Rev Dr Malcolm Brown:
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html>

"When a big new idea emerges which changes the way people look at the
world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is
under attack and then to do battle against the new insights. The
church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and has since
realised its error. Some church people did it again in the 1860s with
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection."

"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes
you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first
reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try
to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope
that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not
over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but
those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good
religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare
to suggest that the opposite may be true as well."

I don't think that is an apology itself and it seems to be about all
that there is here.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/anglicanism.evolution>
says,

"A Church of England spokesman said Brown's piece was a "personal
view" of Darwin's contribution to science and did not amount to an
official apology by the church."
Jimbo
2009-12-25 02:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I'd like to help out those who, like me, were rather baffled by a
report of the Church Of England suddenly "apologizing" to Charles
Darwin, or having a need to do so.  They buried him honourably, for
instance - and almost certainly weren't responsible for his death.
It appears that what happened, happened in September 2008, and
consisted of setting up this section of the C of E web site, I assume
as you see it now (if it hasn't been hacked while I write), and then
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/>
And in particular this article by the "Director of Mission and Public
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html>
"When a big new idea emerges which changes the way people look at the
world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is
under attack and then to do battle against the new insights. The
church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and has since
realised its error. Some church people did it again in the 1860s with
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection."
"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes
you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first
reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try
to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope
that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not
over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but
those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good
religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare
to suggest that the opposite may be true as well."
I don't think that is an apology itself and it seems to be about all
that there is here.
What part of "...owes you an apology..." did you not understand?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.or­g
2009-12-26 23:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jimbo
Post by Robert Carnegie
I'd like to help out those who, like me, were rather baffled by a
report of the Church Of England suddenly "apologizing" to Charles
Darwin, or having a need to do so.  They buried him honourably, for
instance - and almost certainly weren't responsible for his death.
It appears that what happened, happened in September 2008, and
consisted of setting up this section of the C of E web site, I assume
as you see it now (if it hasn't been hacked while I write), and then
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/>
And in particular this article by the "Director of Mission and Public
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html>
"When a big new idea emerges which changes the way people look at the
world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is
under attack and then to do battle against the new insights. The
church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and has since
realised its error. Some church people did it again in the 1860s with
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection."
"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes
you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first
reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try
to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope
that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not
over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but
those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good
religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare
to suggest that the opposite may be true as well."
I don't think that is an apology itself and it seems to be about all
that there is here.
What part of "...owes you an apology..." did you not understand?
If I say that I owe you fifty dollars, do you have fifty dollars more
than before I said it? No. I haven't given you dollars then, only
words.

The point also seems to have been made that if I say that Rev Dr
Malcolm Brown owes you fifty dollars, it doesn't imply that Malcolm
Brown has even considered giving you fifty dollars: I don't have the
right to speak for him.

If I say it in a guest column article on his web site, maybe it counts
for more. It depends on whether his editorial policy is to publish
only statements that he agrees with.

But maybe I'm mistaken and there is more to this "Church of England
apologises to Charles Darwin" thing than this that I've found. If so,
it doesn't seem to have made the news recently: of three articles in
Google News mentioning "Charles Darwin" and "Church of England", only
one refers to an apology and it appears to be the "incident" that I've
discussed - see
<http://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/index.aspx?
page=article&sectid=26&contentid=20091206200912060340066559bd17a&sectxslt=>
The "Ahmedabad Mirror", 6th December 2009.

Nic
2009-12-25 02:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I'd like to help out those who, like me, were rather baffled by a
report of the Church Of England suddenly "apologizing" to Charles
Darwin, or having a need to do so.  They buried him honourably, for
instance - and almost certainly weren't responsible for his death.
It appears that what happened, happened in September 2008, and
consisted of setting up this section of the C of E web site, I assume
as you see it now (if it hasn't been hacked while I write), and then
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/>
And in particular this article by the "Director of Mission and Public
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html>
"When a big new idea emerges which changes the way people look at the
world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is
under attack and then to do battle against the new insights. The
church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and has since
realised its error. Some church people did it again in the 1860s with
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection."
"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes
you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first
reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try
to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope
that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not
over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but
those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good
religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare
to suggest that the opposite may be true as well."
I don't think that is an apology itself and it seems to be about all
that there is here.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/anglicanism.evolution>
says,
"A Church of England spokesman said Brown's piece was a "personal
view" of Darwin's contribution to science and did not amount to an
official apology by the church."
when I see the world as I know it, when I look out of my door the
world isnt a globe & the earth is flat. People have sworn to me that
the world is round, that there are little tiny things called 'genes'
and an even tinier thing which was called an 'atom', why should I
believe anything else than what I read say? or what people try to
explain? science is a language.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.or­g
2009-12-26 23:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nic
Post by Robert Carnegie
I'd like to help out those who, like me, were rather baffled by a
report of the Church Of England suddenly "apologizing" to Charles
Darwin, or having a need to do so.  They buried him honourably, for
instance - and almost certainly weren't responsible for his death.
It appears that what happened, happened in September 2008, and
consisted of setting up this section of the C of E web site, I assume
as you see it now (if it hasn't been hacked while I write), and then
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/>
And in particular this article by the "Director of Mission and Public
<http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html>
"When a big new idea emerges which changes the way people look at the
world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is
under attack and then to do battle against the new insights. The
church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and has since
realised its error. Some church people did it again in the 1860s with
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection."
"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes
you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first
reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try
to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope
that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not
over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but
those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good
religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare
to suggest that the opposite may be true as well."
I don't think that is an apology itself and it seems to be about all
that there is here.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/anglicanism.evolution>
says,
"A Church of England spokesman said Brown's piece was a "personal
view" of Darwin's contribution to science and did not amount to an
official apology by the church."
when I see the world as I know it, when I look out of my door the
world isnt a globe & the earth is flat. People have sworn to me that
the world is round, that there are little tiny things called 'genes'
and an even tinier thing which was called an 'atom', why should I
believe anything else than what I read say? or what people try to
explain? science is a language.
Nic, I'm not sure what you're saying here. If it's "When scientists
tell you wacky stuff, don't freak out", I like it. It's the first
point I quoted from this guy Malcolm Brown. If it's "When scientists
tell you wacky stuff, don't believe them", I have reservations about
that.

I would say, however, that if someone says "I'm
a scientist and you must buy my vitamin pills / electrified water /
mobile phone defence shampoo or you will die", you should be
sceptical, and spend as much time as you consider necessary to judge
for yourself how far you should accept what they are saying. That
also goes for smoking and global warming, but on both sides. And
likewise evolution. There are statements by apparent proper
scientists about evolution that are very doubtful; that blonde people
will be extinct by the end of the 22nd century, for instance, as
described here:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2284783.stm>

For a British perspective on that sort of thing, see
<http://www.badscience.net>
Otherwise look up James Randi's web site, taking great care to spell
Randi with a letter i.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...