Church of England to apologise to Darwin.

[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.

I think it was fairly clear what I was saying.

First part: It would be nice if this would open some eyes.
Second part: But it won't.

Not: This will destroy creationism.

[Каие]

In interpreted 'opening peoples eyes to nonsense' as to it will be completely debunked thus disappear.

[Rich86]

But I never said it is going to dissapear;

Second part: But it won't.

This is what - 3rd time I've outlined what I mean. I've been quite clear each time. It's 23:04 now and quite frankly I'm too tired to bother with a 4th attempt to restate in equally clear language what I mean.

I never said it was going to destroy creationism - explained this several times now and don't have the inclination to continue doing this - to be honest, not sure why you can't simply accept I never meant that this apology from the church would "destroy creationism"?

[Каие]

Yeah i never refuted you, i was just explaining how i interpreted what you said because you said you were confused as to where i got my logic. I don't wish to take up the point furhter.

[Chaigidel]

a religion that modernizes is the one that survives :o--- you can have both god and science without any conflict whatsoever-- and the majority of humanity will always do so.

[motiv-8]

a religion that modernizes is the one that survives :o--- you can have both god and science without any conflict whatsoever-- and the majority of humanity will always do so.

Well said.

[Chaigidel]

pretty much all the churches in america are based on science hate sadly ( protestant obviously)

[The Good]

I'm not sure on this particular church's position on the evolution theory/related theories, but for the purpose of this post, I'm going to make the assumption that most Anglicans don't believe it completely (most likely not 100%, is all I'm saying). I'm also guessing that the motivation behind the apology was to attract advocates of evolution.

I believe that some of the development patterns represented in evolution could even be found in the first few verses of Genesis in the Bible, just need to carefully analyze it to notice the similarities. But I don't completely believe it either, not in the way modern scientists do, anyway. When I study evolution and it's related theories, I try to look at it in a religious perspective, mostly to see how much of it could be compatible with Christianity/Judaism.

[Chaigidel]

I have as of yet found nothing in the bible which conflicts with scientific thought as long as you read the bible in a spiritual light so to say metaphor for inner conflicts, and our relationship with the universe our world and the people around us.

[Ragabash]

This is a perfect example how ancient religions have started, and need to adapt or loose their credibility in the long term. Nevertheless, good news that will hopefully in time also have an impact to more strict christian branches (such as Catholic and Orhodox church).

[Chaigidel]

honestly the only way religion can remain a viable social construct is if it adapts--- just as you say ragabash, I could not agree more---- I think it would be good for boththe religions and the religious

[Ragabash]

Yes, it's far better to have religions that can adapt to the current situation and its demands rather than something that needs to be fought endlessly against with the expense of progress and new innovations. I welcome these reformation movements with open heart, let the people determine their religion, not the other way around.

[sephodwyrm]

I think its an improvement. I don't really care about how long it took them to do it, as long as they did it. Another victory for rationality, the empirical and experimental method and the reconciliation between religion and science.

[Ruin]

a religion that modernizes is the one that survives :o--- you can have both god and science without any conflict whatsoever-- and the majority of humanity will always do so.

Yes, eventually these religions will fall back on the only thing they actually know, and begin to preach "Christ existed, and was a good man!" And that will be it. It's not modernisation, it's giving ground.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Adherents of a religion will cling on to their false claim of truth regardless of form. Any shape change while still upholding this means nothing. Religion remains rotten to the core.

[Каие]

People are missing the point that Creationism is as good as dead in Britain, Darwin's on the back of our £10 note, he's a national hero.

[Каие]

Just to confirm, (before all hell breaks loose) your claim is that the Catholic church never denied Evolution, because they never took Genesis literally?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Just to confirm, (before all hell breaks loose) your claim is that the Catholic church never denied Evolution, because they never took Genesis literally?

No, that was not my claim and not even remotely close to it. Read what I said again and keep reading it until you understand it.

Honestly, the pathetic comprehension skills of kids these days ...

[Каие]

No, that was not my claim and not even remotely close to it. Read what I said again and keep reading it until you understand it.

Honestly, the pathetic comprehension skills of kids these days ...

Ah, so instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you are openly hostile? How Christian. For shame.

For the record...

"The catholic church never believed in Bible literalism" in a thread about evolution and genesis, implies you are trying to say the Catholic church never had a problem with Evolution.

Otherwise please do elaborate, else don't be too quick with the insults.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Ah, so instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you are openly hostile? How Christian. For shame.

"How Christian"? Where did you get the idea I was a Christian? As anyone who's been around here long enough knows full well, I'm an atheist. I'm also someone who doesn't post unless I know what the hell I'm talking about.

For the record...

"The catholic church never believed in Bible literalism" in a thread about evolution and genesis, implies you are trying to say the Catholic church never had a problem with Evolution.

It implies nothing of the sort in the context of my post, which is the only context that counts here. You can have a church which is not based on Biblical literalism but still has a problem with evolution. A literal interpretation is just one of the four ways the Catholic Church can interpret a Biblical text. This means it has a lot more leeway than Biblically literalist churches and means that it is capable of accomodating science that seems to contradict the Bible by interpreting those parts of the Bible in a symbolic or allegorical sense.

This means the Catholic Church has been one of the more flexible churches when it comes to science, not one of the least. And that's because it is not locked into a literal interpretation of all texts like many Protestant fundamentalist churches.

The Catholic Church only had a "problem" with interpretations of evolution that precluded God and upheld materialist views of nature and the universe. It has always been neutral on the question of whether we evolved or not - leaving that to science - but has cautioned its members to beware of interpretations of that science that exclude God or otherwise contradict doctrines about Orginal Sin etc.

Otherwise please do elaborate, else don't be too quick with the insults.

Then tread carefully before you tell me I'm wrong. I don't post unless I really know what I'm talking about. Always.