Church apologizes to Darwin over the Theory of Evolution

[generator_g1]

Clicky!

THE Church of England will make an official apology to naturalist Charles Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution

Coming 126 years after his death, the church's apology will focus on how wrong it was for senior bishops in the past to misunderstand and attack Darwin's theory about man being descended from apes.

Senior church officials will post the apology in the form of an article written by the Reverend Dr Malcolm Brown on the church's website tomorrow.

"Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth (in 1809), the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,'' the article says, according to extracts printed by The Mail on Sunday newspaper.

"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.''

But the apology by Dr Brown, who is the director of mission and public affairs of the Archbishops' Council, has been dismissed as "pointless'' by Darwin's great great grandson Andrew Darwin.

"Why bother? he said.

"When an apology is made after 200 years, it's not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.''

But Dr Brown says everyone makes mistakes, the church included.

"When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it's easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights,'' he writes.

"The church made that mistake with Galileo's astronomy and has since realised its error.

"Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

"So it is important to think again about Darwin's impact on religious thinking, then and now.''

Dr Brown said there was nothing incompatible between Darwin's scientific theories and Christian teaching.

I haven't seen this posted before, but if it was, please feel free to lock the thread.

[salm]

"When an apology is made after 200 years, it's not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.''

I disagree with this. If an organisation like a church whose followers are more or less bound to their teachings appologizes for a misstake it can be very useful since it will make a lot or at least some followers change their mind as well.

[Superman]

Well... better late than never.

[Themightytom]

Well... better late than never.

I wonder what the ETA on the stem cell apology is...

[Superman]

I wonder what the ETA on the stem cell apology is...

Expect that sometime around 2134.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm sure Darwin's corpse will be much gratified by the CoE's contrition.

[Zor]

For what it's worth they took less time about it than the Catholics did with that whole Galileo Business.

Zor

[CaptJodan]

"When an apology is made after 200 years, it's not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.''

I disagree with this. If an organisation like a church whose followers are more or less bound to their teachings appologizes for a misstake it can be very useful since it will make a lot or at least some followers change their mind as well.

Seconded. I see this as a good thing that could spur people to at least consider their long-held belief, or perhaps lead to a new generation being brought up in the church where "Darwin is evil" isn't preached readily. It's also public, so people can point to the apology to those attending that church if need be.

[General Zod]

I disagree with this. If an organisation like a church whose followers are more or less bound to their teachings appologizes for a misstake it can be very useful since it will make a lot or at least some followers change their mind as well.

What use is the apology when the person they committed the offense against is long dead? Frankly it sounds to me when organizations apologize for shit like this they're doing it because it's politically convenient.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Hey look, guys! The Church is all modern and relevant to your lives! Christianity is compatible with science! Wait! Come back!

I don't see this as anything other than pandering to the wishy-washy secular demographics of the UK, and if it is in fact sincere, then it's just more odious goalpost moving.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Fuck the Church. There's a reason they're trying to be more hip and progressive, and that's because the "me" generation doesn't care for them. They may have stifled scientific development and moral progress in society to an extent, but they sure as hell aren't going to win over apathy of young people.

That's why they're more interested in the gullible plebes of Third World nations now. You need to be a certain level of stupid to buy into this gig, else it doesn't grab you.

[Singular Intellect]

Dr Brown said there was nothing incompatible between Darwin's scientific theories and Christian teaching.

*snickers* Suurreee there isn't.

That's why they're more interested in the gullible plebes of Third World nations now. You need to be a certain level of stupid to buy into this gig, else it doesn't grab you.

One should also point it out stupidity isn't the sole factor either; desperation and hardship will often make people jump at anything that promises it'll 'all get better if you do this' bullshit.

That was one very realistic element of the movie "The Mist" I noticed.

[salm]

I disagree with this. If an organisation like a church whose followers are more or less bound to their teachings appologizes for a misstake it can be very useful since it will make a lot or at least some followers change their mind as well.

What use is the apology when the person they committed the offense against is long dead? Frankly it sounds to me when organizations apologize for shit like this they're doing it because it's politically convenient.

It´s obviously of no use for Darwin himself. But like mentioned above, in an organisation where the followers are bound to the teachings of said organisation it means a lot what the official stance on something as important as evolution is. Now, i interpreted this article as if the church had just changed it´s stance on the whole matter and had preached something else (creationism perhaps) before.

I see how you could also read it as if they had allready changed their stance before and were now only seeking a personal appology. After all the catholic church has changed its mind on evolution (even though Papa Ratzi is a setback ) so it´s not totally unlikely that this church has also accepted evolution before.

The former is really important the latter not so much. However, no matter if it´s meant to be a PR stunt or not i wouldn´t see it as a bad thing. I´d maybe compare it to muslim organisation giving out a satement in which they condemn muslim terrorists.

[Thanas]

^If anything, it decreases the likelihood of some fundie attacking scientists, which is a good thing.

[Zixinus]

Darwin has been dead for over a century. This apology cannot be sincere in the least and at best is a staggering attempt to try and make themselves smaller idiots.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

^If anything, it decreases the likelihood of some fundie attacking scientists, which is a good thing.

It's more likely that fundies will simply declare that the Church of England has been led astray by Satan and then continue on as normal.

And the Anglican Church of Africa may once again threaten to leave the Anglican communion over this false, anti-biblical apology. . .

[Singular Intellect]

Darwin has been dead for over a century. This apology cannot be sincere in the least and at best is a staggering attempt to try and make themselves smaller idiots.

With only a tiny modification to your comment there, one could say the exact same about any government that has apologized for previous wrong doings (like slavery).

While I'm the first to look to the future and hope that all religion is completely eradicated at some point, this is at least a tiny step in the right direction.

[General Zod]

With only a tiny modification to your comment there, one could say the exact same about any government that has apologized for previous wrong doings (like slavery).

I'm not really sure how it's comparable to governments apologizing for doing bad things. Since the church's apologies carry no legal weight or imperatives whatsoever, which means people won't actually be required to change their way of thinking in regards to whatever it is that's being apologized for. At least when a government apologizes for something like slavery they spend time drilling it into the heads of their citizens that it's a bad thing to do or support, whereas the church will likely apologize and promptly ignore the subject as much as possible afterwords.

[Singular Intellect]

With only a tiny modification to your comment there, one could say the exact same about any government that has apologized for previous wrong doings (like slavery).

I'm not really sure how it's comparable to governments apologizing for doing bad things.

Because both are examples of large and powerful organizations presenting a particular viewpoint to it's people.

Since the church's apologies carry no legal weight or imperatives whatsoever, which means people won't actually be required to change their way of thinking in regards to whatever it is that's being apologized for.

Why are we going to suddenly pretend what the church says and does doesn't drastically influence how people think? And since when does the government's position require someone to change their mind? Have you no understanding or experience with political activity?

At least when a government apologizes for something like slavery they spend time drilling it into the heads of their citizens that it's a bad thing to do or support, whereas the church will likely apologize and promptly ignore the subject as much as possible afterwords.

So you're either going to have people who acknowledge said apology or ignore it...how is that different from a government example?

Many people dislike/hate the government and we're supposed to accept that it can influence people more so than another organization where followers love/adore it and will do stupid things like tripping over themselves to give it free money. As opposed to government where most people grumble or outright hate the government from taking their money.

[Zixinus]

With only a tiny modification to your comment there, one could say the exact same about any government that has apologized for previous wrong doings (like slavery).

If the government actually DOES something about it, like paying reperations (if there is a point, like, giving it to people who actually suffered government misconduct, like with the Japanese-Americans during WW2) or learning from their mistakes, there is a difference.

Otherwise, yeah, its still just and empthy gesture.

[Metatwaddle]

I disagree with this. If an organisation like a church whose followers are more or less bound to their teachings appologizes for a misstake it can be very useful since it will make a lot or at least some followers change their mind as well.

In general I agree, but I've never met an Anglican creationist and I don't think many exist. I knew an Episcopalian creationist once, but she left the church because she thought it was too liberal.