Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin

[Blackleaf]

The Church of England will apologise to Charles Darwin saying that it was wrong to dismiss Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In these modern times of modern science, only crankpots still subscribe to the Bible's view of the Creation.

The Church of England, headed by the Queen, is the Mother Church of the worldwide Anglican Communion. It was a Roman Catholic church from 597-1534 but has been Anglican since 1534 when England gained independence, religiously, from Rome.

The Church of England has 26 million followers in England, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.


Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

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



By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
14 Sep 2008
The Telegraph

Charles Darwin in 1854



The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's 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 Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching.

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

"The statement will read: 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 practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Opposition to evolutionary theories is still "a litmus test of faithfulness" for some Christian movements, the Church will admit. It will say that such attitudes owe much to a fear of perceived threats to Christianity.

The comments are included on a Church of England website promoting the views of Charles Darwin to be launched on Monday.

telegraph.co.uk

 

[hermanntrude]

In these modern times of modern science, only crankpots still subscribe to the Bible's view of the Creation.

rofl

 

[MHz]

LOL doesn't Darwinism teach that whales came from fish that came onto the land and then became warm-blooded and changed their spine movement and then crawled back into the oceans? Rather then them being descendants of birds that basically fell into the water and could not regain flight.
At what point does Darwinism determine our current path around the sun was established? As far as I know they are not even sure how the water got here.
Does Darwinism have life being established in the seas and on the land at the same time? ie grass and other plants like trees being present when the seas were just beginning to hold water?

Perhaps the Church of England should read a few articles on old earth creationism before they kneel before Darwin.,

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Perhaps the Church of England should read a few articles on old earth creationism before they kneel before Darwin.,

MHZ, creationism is religion, while evolution is science, one has nothing to do with the other. Doesn’t matter how many articles Church of England read about superstition, what has that to do with science, with evolution?

 

[Mulk]

you're kidding right? This is as much of a made-up bull **** article as i have ever seen.

Okay, Darwin and the church both got it wrong. Sure we evolved from monkeys, but WHY? Once again science has left us wanting more.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

you're kidding right? This is as much of a made-up bull **** article as i have ever seen.

Okay, Darwin and the church both got it wrong. Sure we evolved from monkeys, but WHY? Once again science has left us wanting more.

Just because you can't understand what the scientists are telling you doesn't mean it's not true...

 

[gerryh]

Just because you can't understand what the scientists are telling you doesn't mean it's not true...

SHow a direct documented link from monkeys to man... no holes...no jumps...no assumptions....a direct documented line from monkeys to man.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

SHow a direct documented link from monkeys to man...

Can't be done. There isn't one. Humans aren't descended from monkeys. Apes, monkeys, and man, descend from a common ancestor. If you're going to challenge evolution, at least try to get its claims right.

 

[scratch]

Good Day Dex,

It has been documented that there is only a 2% difference in the DNA of a chimpanzee and a human.

Are you eluding to a `missing link`?

scratch

 

[Outta here]

Oh the irony. The Church is finally ready to take a giant leap forward... just in time for the next wave of controversy.

Anyone watched Expelled yet? If not you really should. Fascinating glimpse into the politics propelling the scientific community and the fight between Darwinism and Intelligent Design (which btw, is not the same thing as Creationism).

The Church might want to sit back for a couple more years to see who comes out ahead on this one.

 

[darkbeaver]

That sounds like it would be interesting, particularly because it mentions the controversy that has been rageing in fields like cosmology for years about the origins of the universe and it's fundemental qualities.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Anyone watched Expelled yet? If not you really should.

Don't bother, it's crap.

... Intelligent Design (which btw, is not the same thing as Creationism).

Actually, it's not really much different, it's just creationism tarted up with scientific-sounding jargon, and omits explicitly religious language in an attempt to get around the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause. It's still scientifically bankrupt.

 

[Risus]

Darwin denied his own theory on his deathbed...

 

[Outta here]

Don't bother, it's crap. Actually, it's not really much different, it's just creationism tarted up with scientific-sounding jargon, and omits explicitly religious language in an attempt to get around the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause. It's still scientifically bankrupt.

I'll take a look at your link Dexter - thanks.

Just as an aside though - Crap, much like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Darwin denied his own theory on his deathbed...

No he didn't, that story's just a bit of popular mythology the creationists like to toss around. There's no good evidence it's true, merely the unsubstantiated claims of a woman calling herself Lady Hope who claims to have heard Darwin say he wished he hadn't expressed his theory of evolution as he had. One of Darwin's children, a daughter I think, denied the story, but even it it's true, what Lady Hope claims he said is not a repudiation of evolution, merely a wish that he'd expressed it some other way.

 

[MHz]

There Is No Mechanism for Adding a Gene

 

[Risus]

No he didn't, that story's just a bit of popular mythology the creationists like to toss around. There's no good evidence it's true, merely the unsubstantiated claims of a woman calling herself Lady Hope who claims to have heard Darwin say he wished he hadn't expressed his theory of evolution as he had. One of Darwin's children, a daughter I think, denied the story, but even it it's true, what Lady Hope claims he said is not a repudiation of evolution, merely a wish that he'd expressed it some other way.

Did Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed?

 

[karrie]

...but even it it's true, what Lady Hope claims he said is not a repudiation of evolution, merely a wish that he'd expressed it some other way.

How does that old saying go? No atheists in foxholes? The fact that someone would possibly express regret, or hedge their bets at the end of their life, isn't proof of much of anything, except fear of the unknown.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Did Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed?

No he did not.

from Charles Darwin | Naturalist, here's the relevant quote:

It has been supposed that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. Shortly after his death, temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope claimed she visited Darwin at his deathbed, and witnessed the renunciation. Her story was printed in a Boston newspaper and subsequently spread. Lady Hope's story was refuted by Darwin's daughter Henrietta who stated, “I was present at his deathbed ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”

 

[scratch]

How could this possibly proved one way or the other?