Church needs to Apologize to Darwin

The Church of England owes Charles Darwin an apology for misunderstanding his theory of evolution and making errors over its reaction to it, a senior clergyman said today.In a bid to recognize its faults in the run up to next year’s 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, the church has launched a series of articles on its website.An essay by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the church’s head of public affairs, called Good Religion Needs Good Science directly addresses Darwin. It concludes: “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.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/anglicanism.evolutionHe had me until that last part — good science needs to ignore religion completely.

80 Responses to “Church needs to Apologize to Darwin”

  1.  charlie says:

    did these empathy codes evolve from behavioral changes related to Maslow’s Needs over a long period of time

  2.  Frosty3579 says:

    I was using the term “uneducated” in reference to really, any theist. Because, in my opinion, anyone who takes the time to properly educate themselves will come to the same conclusion about god, or God, or whatever the heck he is called today.
    But for those that do not take the time to properly educate themselves, divine punishment is all they know. I doubt they could grasp a different concept of morality other than the basic ?punishment for a crime?. As for me, I consider myself to be a moral atheist. So I am not saying that religion is the root of morality.
    I was merely stating that without religion, some would run amuck without any care for the consequences.

  3.  godless sodomite says:

    I have to agree with Frosty. In a world where more than half of the population has an IQ of 100 or less and a far greater number have no access so a real education religion probably does do some good for the ignorant and stupid masses of the world. It gives them a reason to live and a reason to keep their behaviour in check. This doesnt mean that I think religion is needed to be moral but I do think that for a lot of the hoi poloi it probably helps. Just keep it private and dont force it into my life or government and I really dont give a toss if you believe in talking snakes and virgin births. The problem is that few of the religious are happy to live and let live.

  4.  Jesuslover says:

    Godless-

    No, I consider him to be a God who allows the freedom of your choice. Even if he were a tyrant, then you admit this Tyrant exists. If he then is real, then we are talking about his character and that is a totally different road. You being a athiest would say that he does not exist, thus there can be no tyrant. I will be honest,I have no clue what happens after death. In oher words, if you face God and he is real and accept his authority , he may let you in. But like I said before, that would be the root of the issue: Who is in charge? Maybe Hell is just anarchy. But I am just pontificating, he doesn’t exist anyway , right?

  5.  quantum_flux says:

    Jesus doesn’t pay you to pontificate Jesuslover, he pays you to be a “Jesuslover”. Leave the pontificating to the people who have an imagination and the logical capacity for reason.

  6.  Jesuslover says:

    Q.F.

    I do have quite an imagination. I am not sure about being “paid”. But I will take your advice. You are correct, all that He asks is to love Him and love my neighbor. Goodnight, Neighbors!!

  7.  quantum_flux says:

    You do not have an imagination Jesuslover.

  8.  cry4turtles says:

    They don’t care about religion, they just worry about making money.

    Ahhh, the TRUE religion of America (and the world)!!!! Let’s all worship the almighty dollar together. Hold hands, close yer eyes, and pray for more.

  9.  Jesuslover says:

    q.f.

    How do You define imagination?

  10.  Friday Pirate says:

    Jesuslover:

    Even if he were a tyrant, then you admit this Tyrant exists.

    I don’t think the question is whether or not God is a tyrant. You make a very good point– somebody who does not exist cannot be a tyrant. But I believe that the point Godless is trying to make is that you worship somebody who is commonly understood to be a tyrant. You worship somebody who, according to Christians around the world, has behaved in ways we would call tyrannical.

    Christians claim to be peace-loving people but still worship a God who is known to play favorites and to give out punishment that is, by today’s standards, pretty cruel and unusual.

  11.  Friday Pirate says:

    q_f…

    I’d say that an active and continual belief in the existence of something for which there is no proof constitutes a pretty active imagination.

  12.  Obeah says:

    qf,

    You do not have an imagination Jesuslover.

    How can you make such a statement based on such a brief encounter on a blog? Some people I’ve met are handicapped in that department but everyone has an imagination.

    jesuslover,
    You seem not to be a fundamentalist; the type of xian atheists usually think of and encounter here.
    If so, you have a problem identifying as a Christian. Do you believe that the New Testament is the inerrant word of god?

  13.  Friday Pirate says:

    Obeah:

    ‘Christians’ who pick and choose the parts they like out of the doctrine are nothing new here.

    On one hand, I like it, because it means they’re able to think for themselves and reject the cruel and unusual parts of the doctrine. But on the other hand, I hate that they still ‘believe’ the parts they don’t personally choose to reject.

    I’ve always seen adherence to a religion as all-or-nothing. I don’t see how you can hold people responsible for commandments a, b, and c, when you personally choose to ignore x, y, and z. It’s kind of like choosing to obey speed limits, but completely disregarding traffic signals because you think they’re silly.

  14.  Jesuslover says:

    Obeah-

    The question of what I believe and my theology is not the point. When you question my theology it is a whole different debate. You then go to the position that God exists. If God exists and we debate about the parts you don’t like or I don’t like about God, doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. My point in my entering the conversation, is to let some of you know, that not all religious people are hateful. Some of us realize that we have done evil and grevious things. That I hope we can correct in the future. I realize I might not change many (or any)minds. That’s it. I just want to thank all of you for allowing me to express myself. I can’t guarantee I will be a regular contributer, but I will try to check in once and awhile

  15.  Friday Pirate says:

    Jesuslover:

    When you question my theology it is a whole different debate. You then go to the position that God exists.

    Incorrect. It is very possible to talk about what you believe without accepting it as undeniable fact.

    It’s quite possible to discuss properties of an imaginary thing while still accepting that it is imaginary.

  16.  Jesuslover says:

    According to Q.F., since I have no imagination, there is nothing to discuss!!!

  17.  Friday Pirate says:

    Cop out.

    You believe in God. Others believe in the same God. They believe he has performed actions which I believe could be categorized as tyrannical.

    Are you asserting that your god never performed these actions? If so, do you have any proof, or any reason other than that you like it to believe that he DIDN’T do these actions?

  18.  godless sodomite says:

    No, I consider him to be a God who allows the freedom of your choice.

    Believe in me and be rewarded in heaven or reject me and burn in hell forever. Thats not really much of a choice now is it? Only a tyrant would give you such options.

    Even if he were a tyrant, then you admit this Tyrant exists.

    No I dont. God is not real but the god delusion that exists in many peoples minds is very real and it impacts my life in a very negative way. This is why I despise religion.

  19.  Friday Pirate says:

    Godless:

    Believe in me and be rewarded in heaven or reject me and burn in hell forever. Thats not really much of a choice now is it? Only a tyrant would give you such options.

    Denial is a beautiful thing. Of COURSE my god wouldn’t do that! I love peace so he must, as well.

    They want to believe in a loving god because they consider themselves to be loving people.

    The bible says man was created in the likeness of God. I say that people create God in the likeness of themselves.

  20.  quantum_flux says:

    Yeah right, I’ll bet Jesuslover here couldn’t even imagine a movie script that doesn’t have Jesus in it.

  21.  Jesuslover says:

    Godless-

    It is the ultimate choice.

  22.  what says:

    Jesuslover

    Give me operational definitions of “god” and “exist”. But first google “operational definition” and do a small amount of reading so that you understand what I am asking of you.

  23.  quantum_flux says:

    Friday Pirate said….

    I’d say that an active and continual belief in the existence of something for which there is no proof constitutes a pretty active imagination.

    Somebody with an active imagination came up with that story, but it wasn’t Jesuslover. Jesuslover here just sort of adopts somebody else’s imaginary friend and makes it his own. Not that I think it is wise to have imaginary friends, I’m just saying. The people with real imaginations are the people who either solve or cause the world’s problems. I recommend honing the imagination by the laws of reality though, otherwise you get fantasy/fiction religions as an output instead of science fiction which is really useful and inspires intellectual achievement among individuals.

  24.  alatham says:

    Jesuslover,

    First, you’ve probably been victimized by religious leaders by letting them define “atheist” for you, so I’ve got to correct that:

    You being a athiest would say that he does not exist

    No, not necessarily. A-theist means non-theist. Since a theist is someone who explicitly believes in a deity, an atheist is someone who doesn’t explicitly believe in a deity. A generic atheist is NOT someone who believes that no deity exists (though there are a minority of atheists who do so, they’re generally called Strong Atheists). Basically “I do not believe” is not the same thing as “I believe not.” The second statement is an explicit belief whereas the first statement is not a belief at all, it is just the default state.

    We were both born atheists, you’re the only one who took a leap of faith. Please don’t call atheism a belief.

    Also, you’ve got your reasoning backwards:

    The question of what I believe and my theology is not the point. When you question my theology it is a whole different debate. You then go to the position that God exists.

    The problem here is that you’re approaching the question “Does God exist” AFTER you’ve already decided that God exists. That’s backwards and illogical. First, one should observe something in the real world that cannot be explained without the use of a deity (so far this is the stepping stone that nobody has been able to get past). Then (and only then) should we start discussing the properties of this deity so we can decide which deity it is that exists. If you’ve already accepted that the Christian God exists before even gathering evidence that ANY god exists then you’ve committed a jump to conclusions and you’re going to have a very difficult time communicating with atheists.

    In oher words, if you face God and he is real and accept his authority , he may let you in.

    Or God punishes those who adhere to blind faith and only allows those who only accept logical arguments and observable phenomenon into his never-ending party. There’s just as much evidence that this is the case as there is behind your theory. That is to say, there’s no evidence either way (you’re welcome to prove me wrong, however).

    You’re right, we’re all individuals and we shouldn’t be lumping all theists into one group and all atheists into another. I think you were right to speak out in the beginning of the thread. That said, you have to understand that many atheists suffer the negative effects of living in a world filled with theists on a day to day basis. As a result, anyone who stands up and defends religion is likely to get an earful. Unfortunately, you got more than you deserved.

    At the end of the day, religion has clearly inspired plenty of terrible things, so we fight it when we see it. But there are also plenty of religious people who don’t do terrible things and unless they are willing to distance themselves from fundamentalism they’re going to have to deal with the fallout. I’m glad you’ve taken the time to do that, but now we’re left not knowing anything about your beliefs.

  25.  Obeah says:

    My point in my entering the conversation, is to let some of you know, that not all religious people are hateful.

    Contrary to what the other xians, who reside here say, not all atheists think that there is no such thing as a good Christian. Their comments are met with such hostility because they state opinions which are based on cognitive dissonance. One, merely writes to be provocative.

    My earlier question refers to the fact that being a moderate Christian is difficult if the Bible is your authority. And if not, how can you be a Christian?

    Thank you for commenting, not proselytizing.

  26.  what says:

    The Church of England owes Charles Darwin an apology for misunderstanding his theory of evolution and making errors over its reaction to it, a senior clergyman said today.

    Wow. Apologizing to the dead. How meaningless. They should be apologizing to the living.

  27.  justme says:

    The Vatican adds their bit:

    Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi told reporters that: “One thing is sure. Evolution is not incompatible with faith.”

    “Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless,” Ravasi said.

    Quoting the late Pope John Paul II, Ravasi said that “evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html

  28.  what says:

    Justme

    “Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless,”

    Thanks for the quote. Too funny! It’s both useless and makes no sense. Why don’t these peoples heads explode?

  29.  neowolfe says:

    Jesuslover,
    Why don’t you take your blind faith to Neo’s debate thread and answer the tough questions instead of muddying up inteligent conversation with irrellevent questions. You admit yourself your god is a tyrant. Do you really worship him out of love or out of fear? The answer to that question brings in the analogy of Sadam Hussein. Are you afraid to make waves because he will not only kill you, but everyone you have ever known? You are not here to convert us, you are here hoping we can provide you with the mental tools you need to escape the brainwash yourself.

    As a victim of that brainwash, I can help you, and will, given that you open your mind to facts, that your god is a mass murderer, and that Jesus was just bucking the established religious leaders to change people’s vision of god as a sociopathic killer to a loving father. He was promptly rewarded by death by slow torture. We don’t need redemption from sin, because we were never perfect. We don’t die because Adam sinned, we die for the same reason every other animal on this planet dies. Cycle of nature. The old makes way for the opportunities of the new. Without that cycle, evolution wouldn’t work. Wake up, this is not a spiritual question. It is a gathering of evidence and arriving at a logical conclusion.

    NeoWolfe

  30.  DVanWechel says:

    This is soooo funny:

    “Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless,” Ravasi said.

    In otherwords…creationism is useless except as a fairytale.