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

Reposted from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html

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
Last Updated: 1:06AM BST 14 Sep 2008

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.

Darwin's evolution theory is many times mistaken as a synonym for atheism. The point to note is that atheistic arguments have been built around that theory to confuse the whole issue and make it support ideas that were not intended by that theory. This is why even atheists who try to interprete Darwinian evolution theory are not always in concensus (a case in point: late Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins). As the gist of Darwin's ideas are often not quite understood by many, it is often the case that a few people mistake "evolution" for atheism. They are not the same, just as we know that atheism is not science.

Another problem resulting from such arguments is the idea that theism rests on blind faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.

"Science" if properly understood should be appreciated for what it is and not stretched to be a tool for elasticised debates between worldviews such as theism and atheism.

pilgrim.1:

Darwin's evolution theory is many times mistaken as a synonym for atheism. The point to note is that atheistic arguments have been built around that theory to confuse the whole issue and make it support ideas that were not intended by that theory. This is why even atheists who try to interprete Darwinian evolution theory are not always in concensus (a case in point: late Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins). As the gist of Darwin's ideas are often not quite understood by many, it is often the case that a few people mistake "evolution" for atheism. They are not the same, just as we know that atheism is not science.

Another problem resulting from such arguments is the idea that theism rests on blind faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.

"Science" if properly understood should be appreciated for what it is and not stretched to be a tool for elasticised debates between worldviews such as theism and atheism.

Interesting post pilgrim.1, I must ask a question or two though. If scientific knowledge reveals that a widely accepted Biblical "fact" is wrong how ready is the Church to accept that it was wrong. Issues like Darwin's evolutionary theory are not the first and will not be the last to be raised about Biblical ideas and theories. Furthermore in accepting the views of people like Darwin is the Church ready to admit that the stories in the Bible are wrong or do they simply put it down to interpretation of the relevant verses. Would love to hear your views on this issues.

@Tasma,

Tasma:

Interesting post pilgrim.1, I must ask a question or two though. If scientific knowledge reveals that a widely accepted Biblical "fact" is wrong how ready is the Church to accept that it was wrong. Issues like Darwin's evolutionary theory are not the first and will not be the last to be raised about Biblical ideas and theories. Furthermore in accepting the views of people like Darwin is the Church ready to admit that the stories in the Bible are wrong or do they simply put it down to interpretation of the relevant verses. Would love to hear your views on this issues.

Thanks for that insightful question. I'll take time and come back to flesh up my answers. But suffice to say at the moment that it all depends on how people interprete any set of data. I believe that science does not "prove" the message of the Bible wrong - that, unfortunately, is what atheistic evolutionary thinkers have maintained. However, my simple question is this: why are such thinkers so dogmatic even when it is clear that the many conclusions they draw are incorrect?

why are such thinkers so dogmatic even when it is clear that the many conclusions they draw are incorrect?

personal opinion unsupported by facts.

We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.

investigate and interprete what using a 2000 yr old bible? or what theist philosophies are we talking about here.

Calm down. When you read isues, try to lay aside any prejudices and you'll see my point. let me help:

bawomolo:

personal opinion unsupported by facts.

Okay, that's what many people are now recognizing about atheistic evolutionary thinkers (which I clearly stated earlier). But I need to add something for clarity: not all atheists are dogmatic ^{(*sheena, clear now?)}

bawomolo:

investigate and interprete what using a 2000 yr old bible? or what theist philosophies are we talking about here.

Lol. . . did you take the time to read what I stated? Here again:

pilgrim.1:

We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.

The key word there is "experiences". Please understand that in view of theism being discussed here as a worldview, it meets with other worldviews in trying to understand experiences within our world. If you had to invite other worldviews on this question of experience, what would they say?

Let me give you a few examples: Naturalism, Rationalism and Humanism - all expressions of atheistic thinking. In the question of knowledge by experience, we know that theism provides an open readiness to seek to understand reality in investigating the experiences of man. But does Rationalism welcome such openness and model for such investigations? No. How is that possible? Because the very core understanding of Rationalism immediately disqualifies that worldview from this kind of enquiry.

So, what is Rationalism? As there is a philosophical dimension to theism (The Philosophy of Religion), it is only fair to seek a philosophical definition of Rationalism. Here are a few:

Rationalism:

[list][list][li]Dictionary.com - "the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience"[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]YourDictionary.com - "the doctrine that knowledge comes from the intellect in itself without aid from the senses; intellectualism"[/li][/list][/list]

There are other definitions as well, undoubtedly - I urge you to look them up and see if there is any significant departure from the above. However, because these worldviews (Rationalism, Humanism and Naturalism) are not interested in knowledge involving experiences in the real world, do they provide a better model in this enquiry?

If scientific knowledge reveals that a widely accepted Biblical "fact" is wrong how ready is the Church to accept that it was wrong

If you are referring to the time of the earth, that is not a fact in the Bible. Please stop reading into the Bible what is not there.
The Bible does not mention any fact of when the earth was formed, neither does it mention any fact of the Noah's flood and the time in which it happened.
I repeat please stop reading into the Bible what is not there.

If you do not understand it, then accept that you do not understand it and leave those of us who do alone. Thanks.
If you do not understand the context in which it was written and the culture for which it was written, and the people it was written to, then simply say so rather than trying to insert your own personal understanding or "facts" into it.

Do not lay claim to what is untrue, and stop defining the Bible by your own facts. Thank you.

calm down. When you read isues, try to lay aside any prejudices and you'll see my point. let me help:

u might want to use your advice.

Okay, that's what many people are now recognizing about atheistic evolutionary thinkers (which I clearly stated earlier). But I need to add something for clarity: not all atheists are dogmatic (*sheena, clear now?)

the theory of evolution is not a theory of creation. that is not something argued by atheists. you are just babbling here.

If you had to invite other worldviews on this question of experience, what would they say?

different things, who knows??

Let me give you a few examples: Naturalism, Rationalism and Humanism - all expressions of atheistic thinking.

correction, those are not limited to atheistic thinking, deist and agnostic thinkers adhere to such philosophies too. your agenda is open for everyone to see.

However, because these worldviews (Rationalism, Humanism and Naturalism) are not interested in knowledge involving experiences in the real world

not interested in experiences in the spiritual realm and not experiences in the real world. get it right

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

u might want to use your advice.

That's because you didn't quite read me before replying.

bawomolo:

the theory of evolution is not a theory of creation.

I never argued that it was. You might want to be better informed of my views if you took the time to read my inputs about this subject in relevant threads.

bawomolo:

that is not something argued by atheists. you are just babbling here.

There are atheists who have built arguments around the evolution theory to make it read what it does not read. If you were quite aware of this, you would not be babbling either.

bawomolo:

different things, who knows??

Such as. . .?

bawomolo:

correction, those are not limited to atheistic thinking, deist and agnostic thinkers adhere to such philosophies too. your agenda is open for everyone to see.

"All expressions of atheistic thinking" does not make it limited to only atheism. What's biting you?

bawomolo:

not interested in experiences in the spiritual realm and not experiences in the real world. get it right

Sorry, I didn't modify the definitions - quoted as was, the bottom line is that they often are not open to explanatiosn from human experience, whether spiritual or otherwise.

pilgrim.1:

Darwin's evolution theory is many times mistaken as a synonym for atheism. The point to note is that atheistic arguments have been built around that theory to confuse the whole issue and make it support ideas that were not intended by that theory. This is why even atheists who try to interprete Darwinian evolution theory are not always in concensus (a case in point: late Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins). As the gist of Darwin's ideas are often not quite understood by many, it is often the case that a few people mistake "evolution" for atheism. They are not the same, just as we know that atheism is not science.

Another problem resulting from such arguments is the idea that theism rests on blind faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.

"Science" if properly understood should be appreciated for what it is and not stretched to be a tool for elasticised debates between worldviews such as theism and atheism.

I completely agree with all that you stated in the above post. My personal experience has taught me that most of the enthusiasts who try to use science to disprove the existence of God only have pseudo knowledge. No scientist who is knowledgeable will ever tell you that science has disproved the existence of God; neither will any knowledgeable believer tell you that the bible has disproved scientific theories. It is only enthusiasts and people with pseudo knowledge who go about trying to use science(which they don't understand) to disprove the existence of God. It is like comparing apples and oranges. One(creationsism) deals the purpose, while the other(science) deals with the mechanism. One deals with the spiritual, the other deals with the physical.

First thing one learns in science is that science deals with matter, i.e. physical matter. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that lies beyond matter, i.e the spiritritual and etc. It is simply beyond the realm of science. If one chooses not to believe in God, he should be honest enough to admit that this is his personal choice, and not a choice backed with a scientific evidence. Atheism is not science, neither is the belief in God(theism). Both are beyond the realm of science.

The theory of evolution does not deal with God or the spiritual. It simply deals with how the species evolved over time. The theory cannot tell you that there is no God, neither can it tell you that there is a God. The question remains:

1) why did we evolve?
2) did we evolve by chance or was our evolution guided?
3) who started the process, i.e who set in place the laws of nature which guided evolution?
4) does evolution contradict the idea of intelligent design?
5) could we have been created through evolution?

However one chooses to answer the above questions is his/her personal answer. Because science cannot provide such answers. The fact remains that, if rightly understood, evolution does not contradict creationism.  Atheists should stop trying to use science to prove their point.

~Lady~:

If you are referring to the time of the earth, that is not a fact in the Bible. Please stop reading into the Bible what is not there.
The Bible does not mention any fact of when the earth was formed, neither does it mention any fact of the Noah's flood and the time in which it happened.
I repeat please stop reading into the Bible what is not there.

If you do not understand it, then accept that you do not understand it and leave those of us who do alone. Thanks.
If you do not understand the context in which it was written and the culture for which it was written, and the people it was written to, then simply say so rather than trying to insert your own personal understanding or "facts" into it.

Do not lay claim to what is untrue, and stop defining the Bible by your own facts. Thank you.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I'm not reading anything into the Bible that is not literally there. The post is titled "Church of England To Apologize For Rejecting Charles Darwin's Theory". This can only imply that the Church of England felt they had taken an erroneous stance on the issue of evolution. That is what is being talked about specifically. I now said that there is a likelihood of other issues or Biblical stands taken by the Church to become topics of discourse later on.

Now the comments you made actually sound like "don't say anything about the Bible because you(I) don't have the spiritual knowledge to understand it". That seems like a very slippery slide for the Christian faith 'cos where do you stop with this need for in depth knowledge. Do I need it to understand the story of creation, Noah's ark, Moses and the ten commandments, the birth of Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus etc? I wonder if you get my point? If you claim an unbeliever cannot understand the Bible then you then have no need to explain the Bible to anyone you consider faithless and everything in the Bible must be 100% correct, as long as you have faith.

Lastly I must mention that I did grow up in a very "spiritual" family and for many years I actually fought to believe the Bible must be infallible. It just got to the point for me where no amount of mental contorting seemed to make it make much sense. I'm sorry but I don't believe the Bible stories should be so hard to relate with scientific facts. Afterall "God" created everything we use science to study.

lol, lol,

LOL, LOL,
WE ARE SORRY CHARLES DARWING, WE BELIEVE YOU? THEY ORIGINATED FROM MONKEYS, LOL,

Lol. . . @shawn123, I'm not quite sure if Darwin said such a thing.



@justcool,

justcool:

I completely agree with all that you stated in the above post. My personal experience has taught me that most of the enthusiasts who try to use science to disprove the existence of God only have pseudo knowledge. No scientist who is knowledgeable will ever tell you that science has disproved the existence of God; neither will any knowledgeable believer tell you that the bible has disproved scientific theories. It is only enthusiasts and people with pseudo knowledge who go about trying to use science(which they don't understand) to disprove the existence of God. It is like comparing apples and oranges. One(creationsism) deals the purpose, while the other(science) deals with the mechanism. One deals with the spiritual, the other deals with the physical.

First thing one learns in science is that science deals with matter, i.e. physical matter. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that lies beyond matter, i.e the spiritritual and etc. It is simply beyond the realm of science. If one chooses not to believe in God, he should be honest enough to admit that this is his personal choice, and not a choice backed with a scientific evidence. Atheism is not science, neither is the belief in God(theism). Both are beyond the realm of science.

The theory of evolution does not deal with God or the spiritual. It simply deals with how the species evolved over time. The theory cannot tell you that there is no God, neither can it tell you that there is a God. The question remains:

1) why did we evolve?
2) did we evolve by chance or was our evolution guided?
3) who started the process, i.e who set in place the laws of nature which guided evolution?
4) does evolution contradict the idea of intelligent design?
5) could we have been created through evolution?

However one chooses to answer the above questions is his/her personal answer. Because science cannot provide such answers. The fact remains that, if rightly understood, evolution does not contradict creationism.  Atheists should stop trying to use science to prove their point.

Infact, you have stated it in a better way than I attempted. Thank you.