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

http://www.telegraph.co.u...ution.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.
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.

good. shame he doesnt know. seems pointless really.

now maybe its time the catholic church apologised for the inquisition and the massacre of scientists and theologists and free thinkers.

Well. Better late than never, I guess.

I've often wondered how some christians rationalize evolution with their faith. Ok, some believe god initated and guided evolution and the story of Adam and Eve is just that - a story. Now if that's the case, what was Jesus doing on earth? I thought he came to absolve the sin caused by Adam. If there was no Adam and Eve, then surely there was no reason for Jesus to decend from heaven and save us. Also, didnt jesus mention or refer to Adam and Eve, or at the very least the "original sin"
[Edited 9/15/08 6:15am]

How interesting ...

hmmmmm


i wonder how many other 'stories' are in the bible? which bits do you believe as fact and which are fiction?


and why do people so fervently quote the bible like its gospel, oops sorry some of it is, - apparently.


if someone wrote revelations nowadays, theyd be accused of trippin.

anyway the church have very conveniently not said they believe his theory, theyve just offered a hint of understanding, to agree with darwin undermines the very existence of their religion and a few others besides - I bet they are nervous about the big bang experiment too.

What if by proving evolution and/or the big bang created life caused the church to collapse by proving that we/the world was not created by an ethereal being?

Thats alot of property up for sale and jobs lost.

Are we on the verge of a human meltdown? the disproving of god would cause a massive change to take effect. The very foundations of most societies would collapse affecting schools, national holidays, tourism etc etc


here we are back at the reason for the inquisition again!

It it's true, then its both surprising and welcome. The church (whether Catholic of Anglican) faces a dilemma in that it's only chance to survive lies in modernisation, but modernisation will itself undermine the core basis of the church.

Personally, if I was in charge, I'd go full on the the modernisation as at least this would give them a chance to find a useful role in modern society.

Either way thought, the decline of the church looks inevitable, which is no bad thing.

I wonder if we will see similar enlightment on issues such as contraception/homosexuality/abortion? Too much to ask surely...
[Edited 9/15/08 7:15am]
[Edited 9/15/08 7:15am]

razor said:

razor said:

HiinEnkelte said:

yxl1 said:

razor said:

It it's true, then its both surprising and welcome. The church (whether Catholic of Anglican) faces a dilemma in that it's only chance to survive lies in modernisation, but modernisation will itself undermine the core basis of the church.

Personally, if I was in charge, I'd go full on the the modernisation as at least this would give them a chance to find a useful role in modern society.

Either way thought, the decline of the church looks inevitable, which is no bad thing.

I wonder if we will see similar enlightment on issues such as contraception/homosexuality/abortion? Too much to ask surely...
[Edited 9/15/08 7:15am]
[Edited 9/15/08 7:15am]

If I was in charge I'd abandon the whole concept of religion and give my vast wealth to developing countries. Surely THAT would be a christian thing to do

razor said:

syble said:

HiinEnkelte said:

They don't specifically say evolution is sound theory, moreso admit that they were wrong to bully and attempt to silence his viewpoint.

it's nice to see people apologizing for bullying and attempting to silence viewpoints eh comrades?

Springs arrived here, and my glasshouse is a looking fine.

The Church's inability to modernize may in fact be it's salvation. For if the Bible is in fact the word of God should the passing of time dilute it's content or specifically highlight current issues?

Don't get me wrong I struggle to take advice from some celibate/chaste guy on Family issues, and I clearly struggle with Gay Marriage being a moral issue yet slaughtering 500 000 Iraqi's apparently not being so.

cloths of mixed fibers etc, the fact is most take their belief structures from many sources and clearly edit out the bits that create dissonance.

foal30 said: