Church of England to apologise to Darwin.

[Yorkshireman]

The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for it's initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.

"The Church of England will concede in it's sataement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwins ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the church.

The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the church that believe in creationism and regard Darwins views as directly opposed to traditional christian teaching.

The apology, that has been written by the Rev Doctor Malcolm Brown, the Churches director of mission and public affairs, says that christians, in their response to Darwins theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileos astronomy in the 17th century."

Do you think that this is too late, pointless, sensible or a sell out by the church?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...evolution.html

[Heinz Guderian]

Its been 150 years. A bit unneccasary. And Darwin wont hear the apology anyway. Its very noisy in hell.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Better late then never I suppose.

[finsternis]

Better late then never I suppose.

True.

This is also a message to all the fundies saying "evolution is right. Creationism is wrong".

[Playfishpaste]

First the idiots apologize about the age thing, now they are accepting the whole theory. Does it really take this long for the vatican to employ it's common sense, how long did it take for them to accept Drake? They need to get a pope that says "if the scientists have a global consensus and mountains of evidence, how about we just take their word for it?"

[finsternis]

First the idiots apologize about the age thing, now they are accepting the whole theory. Does it really take this long for the vatican to employ it's common sense, how long did it take for them to accept Drake? They need to get a pope that says "if the scientists have a global consensus and mountains of evidence, how about we just take their word for it?"

Or maybe "why don't we just follow whatever science says". Oh wait, they are already doing that. Ok, why don't we just cut the middle man and follow science?

[Medicus]

Or maybe "why don't we just follow whatever science says". Oh wait, they are already doing that. Ok, why don't we just cut the middle man and follow science?

You say that like it's a bad thing...

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

First the idiots apologize about the age thing, now they are accepting the whole theory. Does it really take this long for the vatican to employ it's common sense,

I hate to break it to you, but "the Vatican" doesn't run the Church of England. It hasn't done so for 472 years. You're a bit behind the times.

... how long did it take for them to accept Drake?

"Drake"? Who?

They need to get a pope that says "if the scientists have a global consensus and mountains of evidence, how about we just take their word for it?"

Er, no. The Catholic Church isn't and has never been based on Biblical literalism and it worked out how to reconcile revelation with science way back in the time of Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo. If you want to find some churches to bash for ignoring science you might want to look to some much more recent, much more Protestant and largely American ones.

[Playfishpaste]

I hate to break it to you, but "the Vatican" doesn't run the Church of England. It hasn't done so for 472 years. You're a bit behind the times.



"Drake"? Who?



Er, no. The Catholic Church isn't and has never been based on Biblical literalism and it worked out how to reconcile revelation with science way back in the time of Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo. If you want to find some churches to bash for ignoring science you might want to look to some much more recent, much more Protestant and largely American ones.

Friedrich drake, and I was speaking of catholicism as a whole, and the catholic church has very consistently gone against scientific ideas and progress. Evolution, EM theory, and a lot of Boyle's early work with chemistry to name a few.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Friedrich drake,

The only "Friedrich Drake" I know of is the Nineteenth Century German sculptor. What's he got to do with the Church and science?

and I was speaking of catholicism as a whole

Which doesn't include the Church of England - a institution which has had no connection with "the Vatican" for nearly 500 years. Check the title of this thread.

and the catholic church has very consistently gone against scientific ideas and progress. Evolution, EM theory, and a lot of Boyle's early work with chemistry to name a few.

Since the Catholic Church developed ways to accomodate science about 1500 years ago, it's actually one of the least offenders in this regard. Catholicism will accept any scientific idea so long as it has sufficient acceptance in science. And, since it doesn't and never has interpreted the Bible literally, it's also happy to interpret or even re-interpret Biblical passages as allegorical or figurative if it is shown it should do so.

People make a big deal out of the recent Catholic apology over Galileo and erroneously believe that the Church didn't accept heliocentrism until then. This is nonsense. The apology was PR - the Church accepted heliocentrism when the last scientific objection to it - inertia - was removed by the publication and acceptance of Newton's Principia.

As an atheist, I'm no fan of religion poking its nose into science or making pronouncements on science at all. But if you're going to pick on a church for being anti-science then the Catholic Church should be well down your list. There's a veritable idiot parade of Biblically literalist churches that deserve a kicking well before the Catholics, considering the relatively intelligent dialogue between science and faith that the Catholic Church has encouraged for some centuries now.

[Каие]

Er, no. The Catholic Church isn't and has never been based on Biblical literalism

This is undeniably untrue.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

This is undeniably untrue.

It is absolutely true. The Catholic Church has always believed in the authority of scripture and tradition. And it has always taught that any text in the Bible has no less than four levels of potential meaning, of which the literal level is only one and is one that is not always applicable. This goes all the way back to John Cassian, Augustine and Gregory the Great.

You don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about.

[Playfishpaste]

I wish we could, but that would be fair. This is religion we're talking about, "all's fair in love and war" and it's certainly quite similar to war.

[Каие]

He is not but dust and bones now, this apology is technically useless, but as someone said before me better late than never. It's a symbolic gesture.

[Rich86]

I think it would be a good thing in terms of opening people's eyes to the nonsense of theories such as creationism.

However, if you believe the earth is 6,000 years old I'm guessing those eyes are wedged firmly shut.

[Yorkshireman]

I think it would be a good thing in terms of opening people's eyes to the nonsense of theories such as creationism.

I think thats what the C of E is trying to do, distance thenselves from the more fundamental Christians. Hopefully it means they'll never try to encourage the teaching of creationism now in our schools alongside science.

[Каие]

I don't see how apologising to a dead man will destroy creationism

[Gary88]

unfortunately all this will do is make fundies add CofE to their "evil satan possesed ne'er do wells" list

[Rich86]

I don't see how apologising to a dead man will destroy creationism

I didn't say it would destroy creationism. .....I actually said I believe it will have no effect but er......never mind that hey? :S bit confused but there you go....

No what I was saying that one would hope a comment along the lines of "Yes, evolution is correct" from the church might make some at least consider the possibility their continual rejection of evolution in favour of 'scripture' might be not be the best thing - however it most likely won't.

[Каие]

I must of gotten confused by this....

I think it would be a good thing in terms of opening people's eyes to the nonsense of theories such as creationism