Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin

The Church of England says he was right after all

Charles Darwin: The Church of England says he was right after all

It takes an enormous amount of confidence to admit that you were wrong. This is true for scientists, whose hypotheses are constantly reviewed, criticised and shot down by peers. The constant improvement which results from the open discourse of true science is what has made it such a powerful force for change throughout human history.

The Church of England has taken the remarkable step of acknowledging that their stance on Darwin’s theory of Evolution (that it was erroneous and contradicted scripture) was in error. According to this article on the Daily Telegraph’s website, the Church will issue a posthumous apology to Darwin for denying the theory of Evolution.

Reverend Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church’s director of mission and public affairs, has written the apology. Rev Dr Brown’s statement will concede that the church was “over-defensive” and “over-emotional” in dismissing Darwin’s ideas, and that their “anti-evolutionary fervor” is an “Indictment on the Church”. Rev Dr Brown continues by likening Christians’ rejection of Evolution to their similar, 17th century, rejection of Galilean astronomy.

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(sic) the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends.”

Of course, such a statement is likely to cause the christian world a bit of bother as it directly contradicts many of the teachings in the bible. However, in order to survive in this day and age, one can no longer cling to outdated beliefs. The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the theory of Evolution, and trying to deny it is proving rather difficult. Surely the Church of England will face an onslaught of disapproval from the religious right, and I can only hope that they stick to their guns on this one.

Adaptation is essential for survival and being confident enough to swim against the tide of christian belief on such an important matter is a huge step into the present. Congratulations Rev Dr Brown.

*edit* here is the link to the COE’s Darwin website

Advertisements

47 responses to “Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin

  1. Pingback: It’s my first birthday! « The Skeptic Detective·

  2. creation science is one that makes sense assuming you believe every word of the bible.
    bias is a part of every scientist.
    otherwise we would never get anywhere.
    its just a question of which bias you choose.
    my information on the biological side of evolution is painfully lacking, and i will do further research when i find time. thank you for the interesting debate. (the human eye point wasn’t actually mine, i didnt actually know about that)
    cheers,
    Quasi

  3. First of all, thank you to everyone who got involved in the discussion on this topic. I have found the debate very interesting and it is reassuring to note that the majority of respondents are balanced and rational in thought, whether those thoughts swing to the religious or away from it.

    As is the norm in these kinds of posts, the thread quickly became dominated by the extremist view and the rational ones fell by the wayside as we tried to respond to the mountains of misinformation and logical fallacies that ensued.

    As this is a post about Darwinian Evolution I will try and stick to the pertinent facts. I am not trying to convince anyone to give up their belief system, but perhaps to re-examine the facts upon which they reject Evolution.

    Let us start by examining what the Theory of Evolution actually is. “Evolution” as it is used in biology refers to the process of change in inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It is a false premise to try and apply the Theory of Evolution to any of the following events;

    1. History (as in “We cannot prove the past”)
    2. Geology (as in “Darwin saw the Grand Canyon”, :The canyon at Mt. St, Helen’s”, the formation of the Grand Canyon, plate tectonics)
    3. Cosmology (as in “at the rate the sun is shrinking”, “galaxies spin themselves up”)
    4. Any of the methods used by geologists to date artefacts of the earth.

    Quasivsquintessence has attempted to prove that Evolution is wrong because it does not account for these things. This is flawed thinking. The Theory of Evolution was not formulated to explain these things and therefore it cannot logically be applied to any of them.

    The only notable instance of QvQ attempting to address Evolutionary theory which I could pick up was;

    “i think what a lot of people dont realize especially those most involved is that evolution is a belief system too”. This argument is so woefully fallacious that it can literally be dismissed out of hand. It is a shining example of trying to create a straw man (re-inventing your opponents position in order to give yourself a stronger standing and to make his stance easier to attack, think of the straw man used for knife fighting practice). I am sorry, QvQ, The theory of Evolution is not a belief system. In fact very much of Darwin’s original theory has been re-defined, improved upon and made into a far more cohesive theory then it was when he proposed it. If it were a belief system, with Darwin as some kind of prophet, we would not question his word, we would not try so very hard to prove him wrong.

    Each of the points which you raised, as I summarised above, can be very easily countered by anyone who is prepared to do the research, using reputable, peer reviewed, non-biased sources. If your source for why the human eye could not have evolved is “Answers in Genesis” or “Christian Answers.net” it is probably not an unbiased opinion.

    I will be happy to try and provide rational responses to ANY questions raised regarding any of the points raised in this comment thread or anywhere else on my blog, or the internet. Just send an e-mail to skepticdetective@gmail.com and I will get back to you in person.

    SD

  4. Yes it is. That’s why I don’t bother to argue with true believers. All that stuff you said is basically all wrong, and if I wrote on this blog, I’d tear apart each and every detail.

  5. you leave me a lot to address.
    first the radioisotopic dating. there are many examples where different labs find different results. its also conveniently easy to blame radioisotopic dates that are too young on any other geological factors that can make it as old as they want it too. such data is too easy to manipulate to be verified. the 50 000 year age was also theoretical.
    i must also apologise because my source wasnt as detailed as i would like, and stated that “The observed rotation rates are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral state.
    Rocks were included in the calculations for the erosion part but once again my source is dolefully vague on the rest.
    in regards to the flood waters, the theory is that there were masses of subterranean water which erupted out of the earth being under great pressure from the heat and also caused the splitting up pangaea into the current continents. pangaea covered a lot of the earth and the change in elevations allowed the water to sink into oceans and water basins. much of the water also froze do to the unstable climate after the flood. todays topography is probably a lot different than before the flood.
    half your facts are part of the faith issue, they cant realistically be debated.
    as for original thinking, it doesnt help me much because im not whats called a reputable source.
    im not exactly saying the grand canyon was carved in a similair way which is entirely possible, but im saying its not possible to know otherwise.
    also any facts that assist the argument why evolution is true at the same time.
    reading the bible and once believing in it doesnt mean much. a lot of people go to catholic schools profess they believe and have no clue what they say the believe in and later discard it because it says they are in error.
    to what degrees you have believed and or read the bible?
    i understand that i may possibly be wrong which is what i meant by keeping an open mind.
    its possible to win an argument while convincing nobody.

  6. Mr skepticdetective, You wrote,

    >>My response to the attempts at debate; Mr Purchase throws up so many incomplete thoughts…. I chose to do so in this forum and not by e-mail because I would like my thoughts to be scrutinised by as many readers as possible. Here goes… Purchase makes a huge mistake by assuming to know what Rev Dr Brown does and does not know. Unless Purchase can read Brown’s mind I think it is safe to say that he does, in fact, have no idea what Brown may or may not know. <>A quick scan of the list of “scientific” books which Purchase refers to shows that these are books written in an attempt to break down science, written by creationists. Eg Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood M.J.Oard; Just So Stories R.Kipling and The Grand Canyon, a Different View T.Vail.<>Can you be more specific? Perhaps provide some clue as to which “science proof” you are referring to?<>I am sure that he is quite aware of these “incompatibles”, yet has chosen to acknowledge the overwhelming weight of evidence which supports the theory of evolution.<>Prove it.<>Here Mr Purchase, you betray your complete lack of understanding of the principles of evolution. Look it up on wikipedia.<>Completely ridiculous assertion an Purchase’s part.<>What a beautiful mental gyration you must have gone through to reach this conclusion. The Bible is based on science, whilst evolution is based on theories. Clearly you are trying to create a straw man by mischaracterising evolution, in an attempt to make your position easier to defend. This assertion is laughable. <<

    Well, I know there is a God – based on the evidence. I know the bible is true [or accurate] based on the evidence. My faith is based on knowledge (science) what I know is true. http://answers.net.nz/Other/atheis1.htm

    But evolution is based on stories. How one form gave rise to another, but they are not real science. It’s based on assumptions & facts are reinterpreted to fit the theory. If science doesn’t fit the theory, it’s ignored. The theory is drowning in conjecture, fallacy and imagination.

    Real science can only deal with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again.

    Darwinian Evolution cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. While its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, such stories are not part of science, there is no way of putting them to the test. So by evolution you mean the non-provable [ie. religious] belief that all things have made themselves by means of their own natural properties without outside input. Now that’s a laugh.

  7. 1st off, while we can prove that things existed we can not generally prove when they happened past 50 000 years. – you’re working on the false assumption that the only method for determining the age of the earth is by carbon dating, radioisotope dating in another method which can prove the existence of artefacts beyond 50’000 years. Additionally, the 50’000 year mark alone disproves the word of the bible, dating the earth at 6’500 years, so you’re are being picky with the “facts” that god claims are true beyond reproach.
    galaxies wind themselves up at a rate that is inconsistent with anything more than a few million years. – some proof of this claim would be great. I am no astronomer, but I am sure someone could readily provide you with the evidence you seek.
    earths continents erode too fast, after 15 million years there should be no land left above sea level. – you erroneously assume that only erosion is occurring, and that no new additional material is being pushed up by volcanoes / magma from the earth’s liquid mantle or plate tectonics. Additionally, there is more rock than soil, which would also affect the speed of erosion. Additionally, how long does the bible state it takes to convert a 100% water covered earth to 70% water?
    i have more if you would like. – please do, alternatively refer me to a reputable source so that I can better understand the creationist belief system.
    there are reasonable explanations regarding a theory of a worldwide flood which would have quickly buried all these plants and animals making these oil deposits. – of course you did not provide a brief explanation, and where did all this water come from and go to in a mere 40 days? Never mind the logistical impossibility of Noah loading every species of plant and animal on the ark [imagine the interbred mutations if only 2 of each species existed!]
    evolution can be narrowminded at times because like christianity, it is a belief system. – alas, Christianity places all its belief in a book, and justifies the most ridiculous claims in the book “because god said so”. Whereas evolutionary science has vast volumes of research, fact and peer review which continually questions any new research and findings to back up its “belief system”. The bible is not allowed to be questioned, as its word is “true”.
    i’d also like to see an argument for evolution as one has not yet been presented – you have not presented a single shred of original thinking, you have merely regurgitated “facts” provided by Kent Hovind and AiG
    canyons were carved in a period of days like that of the eruption of mount st helen – [False Dichotomy] you are assuming that because St Helen resulted in fast canyon formation, the same would apply to the Grand Canyon. Wrong!
    you seem quick to bash everyone else without presenting a shred of evidence. – [Ad hominem] define “everyone”. What evidence [apart from the rebuttals I have already provided] do you propose I provide via an internet forum?
    the lack of knowledge presented by many people on the bible and biblical beliefs is more ad ignorantium. – False, I have read the Bible, I even “believed” it, just like I believed in the Easter Bunny. Alas time and maturity have lead me to doubt the facts, ethics and morals presented by the bible
    and just because a book was written to show the holes in evolutionary theory does not mean they should simply be discarded. – but the bible is the ultimate word of god and should not be questioned, lest we burn in hell?
    keep an open mind. – I’ll enjoy my all expenses paid trip to hell, when my time on earth has come

  8. i’d also like to see an argument for evolution as one has not yet been presented
    you seem quick to bash everyone else without presenting a shred of evidence.
    science is not thankfully restricted to evolution
    the lack of knowledge presented by many people on the bible and biblical beliefs is more ad ignorantium.
    and just because a book was written to show the holes in evolutionary theory does not mean they should simply be discarded.
    keep an open mind.

  9. 1st off, while we can prove that things existed we can not generally prove when they happened past 50 000 years.
    carbon dating has been proven inaccurate when any dated object have come in contact with things such as intense heat. due to the nature of the science of carbon dating, theoretically all the carbon is gone or in undetectable amounts after 50 000 years. ad ignorantium?
    galaxies wind themselves up at a rate that is inconsistent with anything more than a few million years.
    earths continents erode too fast, after 15 million years there should be no land left above sea level.
    i have more if you would like.
    there are reasonable explanations regarding a theory of a worldwide flood which would have quickly buried all these plants and animals making these oil deposits.
    ad ignorantium?
    evolution can be narrowminded at times because like christianity, it is a belief system.

  10. Hey, let’s just live how ever we want to. This is all it is.

    I don’t think science has proved there isn’t a God either. Faith is what God asks for.
    I appreciate the post though. My smart remark is not directed at anyone in general. It is truly a general thought.

  11. “So perhaps the church of England’s response is not rejecting alleged outdated beliefs as much as it is helping to make sense of ancient beliefs in light of modern discovery.”

    I agree with you on this one, Charles 🙂

  12. Hmm I agree with randomchic86. “Religion and Science will always be at odds”

    I’m a Catholic but I’ve no problems with the Theory of Evolution. If God has allowed men to figure out Science, I’m sure there’s a very good reason behind it. He Creates and we Evolve. He Creates us in a way that we dominate the earth. We evolve with Science to remain dominant on earth. Surely one can imagine how life is if we’re still stuck in big caves in this age. Heck, we won’t even be discussing this topic!

    It’s something like Evolution is a belief for the mind and Creation is a belief for the soul. The heart is the middle ground so we won’t get carried away by either. The COE doesn’t need to be rebuked. They just have to use the right words so as not to spark any religious fuss. And won’t look silly in the eyes of Scientists.

    You said it yourself, “Adaptation is essential for survival”. If accepting the Theory of Evolution is a terrible betrayal to the Bible, the perhaps, people like me are doomed for the nasty bit in the afterlife. It’s just that, Faith for me and Science are two different things. Both have their own places in my life. We compromise with one another so is it really impossible for Creationists and Evolutionists to compromise as well?

    Well, so far that’s what going on in my mind. Thanks for the interesting post! 🙂

  13. The Church of England may have gotten it wrong twice. It is not evolution that separates science from religion, it is “purpose” in evolution.

    Darwin did not support purposeful evolution. This issue has its analog in physics. The big problem of quantum physics is explaining how randomness and indeterminacy in nature transforms into an ongoing endeavor towards complexity and self-organization – which has culminated in the human brain and consciousness.

    Consciousness recognizes values. So evolution takes bio-complexity to a place where values matter, and therefore, where religion matters.

    TheGodGuy

  14. Pingback: The C.O.E Apologizes! « Simply Saphy·

  15. Pingback: church apologises to darwin « lost in graceland’s blog·

  16. I appreciate the Church of England’s humility in apologizing to Darwin.

    You wrote: “Of course, such a statement is likely to cause the christian world a bit of bother as it directly contradicts many of the teachings in the bible. However, in order to survive in this day and age, one can no longer cling to outdated beliefs.”

    It’s true, many christians believe that such a statement directly contradicts teaching in the Bible. But as a Christian myself, I don’t agree. I think there’s a way to read the Bible for what it is, particularly Genesis where the creation accounts are located — not a history or science text, but a poetic description of how God brought the world into being. I don’t think such an artistic description precludes some kind of evolutionary process. It wasn’t intended as scientific commentary.

    Granted, my views fall more along the lines of theistic evolutionary process, as I assume the Church of England’s is — that is, God is still the one orchestrating the process.

    So perhaps the church of England’s response is not rejecting alleged outdated beliefs as much as it is helping to make sense of ancient beliefs in light of modern discovery.

    Thanks for the article.

  17. @quasivsquintessence:

    Wow, there are so many things wrong with what you have said, that I barely know where to start, but I will choose some of your points:
    we can not prove the past – archaeology, ad ignorantiam
    how old anything is in the past – carbon dating, ad ignorantiam
    how naive. he wasn’t there – geology 101, ad ignorantiam
    i haven’t seen any – ad ignorantiam
    surely over millions of years some evidence would be left behind – think about that, the next time you pump “gas” into your vehicle, ad ignorantiam
    millions of years doesnt make sense – argument from personal incredulity
    the earth would be a part of the sun – ad ignorantiam

    Am I sensing a common thread?

  18. interesting article

    my thoughts on this subject is this, religion and science will always be at odds. religion thinks that bam! god created every single being on this universe-whether microscopic to humans, and science believes that things evolved

    darwin had a good point there on the theory of evolution, because scientists can prove that things do evolve and that science works

    although no one was there when the earth was created, who is to say that God isn’t behind it all, maybe God is pushing for the theory of evolution too

    the bible is a book written by man, man is not perfect, therefore the bible is not perfect. sure its ok to understand and believe the teachings of the bible, but do not let that be the only source for understanding the vast universe that we live in

  19. i think what a lot of people dont realize especially those most involved is that evolution is a belief system too. we can not prove the past, how old anything is in the past, because we dont know and never can know the entire situation. when darwin saw the grand canyon he proclaimed it took millions of years. how naive. he wasn’t there. similair canyons were carved in a period of days like that of the eruption of mount st helen. nobody witnessed these mutations and if any verifiable evidence has been produced by animal mutations i haven’t seen any. surely over millions of years some evidence would be left behind?
    on top of this millions of years doesnt make sense. at the rate the sun is shrinking millions of years ago, the earth would be a part of the sun. just a few thoughts.

  20. @ Mark Purchase B.Th, M.Th. Th.D, Ph.D. etc.

    The Theory of Evolution is a theory [it says so on the tin], not a proven law. Ultimately the theory will have undergone such rigorous scrutiny someone will find a proof – just as with other theories – and become the Law of Evolution, or it will be discarded and replaced by a better idea and theory, based on the information and evidence available at the time.

    On the other hand, advocates of creationism, ‘intelligent’ design etc tell us to accept these notions in faith without scientific scrutiny or examination . None of these ideas are backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

  21. Rev Dr Brown’s essay has been allocated a specific section of the CoE website and it would appear that they are supporting his efforts.

  22. Thank you Kjetil, for the compliment and the correction. I was hoping to create a little lively debate, and it has worked, even if the contributions are not very unique. I enjoy it.

  23. I have seen this apologizing story in other places. Does anybody know if it is the Church of England who is apologizing or is it Reverend Dr Malcolm Brown himself. Does he represent the whole of this church?

    Also wouldn’t people be more impressed if it was John MacArthur or Bill Hybels who did the apologizing? A leader from something that is more of a social club than a church apologizing is laughable. I wouldn’t doubt that Dr. Brown denies the creation account and accepts the theory of evolution. (I didn’t say I know this for fact)

  24. Matt, what do you mean by “No one remembers Lincoln”?
    Are you living on planet Earth. I’m not even a citizen of the USA and I remember Lincoln, never mind the 300 million odd people living in that country.

    Markharrell, dogma is not a logical argument.

    Dan, your statement shows that you have no understanding of the science you attempt to undermine. Do a little homework before pretending to be an authority.

  25. ‘Practise’ is quite correct. It’s the British spelling of ‘practice’.

    Apart from that, great post. The obligatory following debate is as absurd as ever.

  26. Anyone who claimes that evolution is invalid because it’s “just a theory” and “can’t be proven” clearly has no concept of how science and the scientific method work. In order for something to be considered a “good theory”, it must be falsifiable, i.e. able to be proven false. It is impossible to “prove” anything in science, only to disprove it, and it is that constant disproving of theories and formulations of new ones that keep science and society moving forward. Some people can’t handle a world where we don’t KNOW everything, which is why the ridiculous and wholly unscientific (despite Mark Purchase’s ridiculous claim to the contrary) doctrine of creationism is so appealing to some people I suppose. I am willing to bet that 99.999% of people who reject the theory of evolution as it exists today have no idea of how the theory, or science as a whole work at all.

  27. @markharrell:
    Please quantify your claim:
    If you read the first chapter of Genesis carefully… then you will realize what really happened in the creation process. It accounts for dinasaures, the ice age and a vast amount of time. A true creationist does not believe in a young earth. Only creationists who don’t know the Bible spew a young earth. A key… there is a difference between the Hebrew word “made” and “create.”

    Additionally, just to add a facetious question:
    Please explain the whole Ark story to me?

    @dan:
    You have mistakenly assumed that evolution has stopped with the culmination human being, because you believe that the Bible provides all facts. Sadly, we are a pimple on the arse of a speck of sand in the universe. We are so insignificant that evolution [if given the time] will correct our “imperfections”.

  28. evolution is impossible becuase adaptations in nature have only been the result of genetic information loss, not gain. the only time anything new is brought to a species is through mutations, and those mutations are killed off right away. how can you explain a human eye attached to the brain? if total evolution was true, the eye, serving no purpose without the optical nerve would be killed off before it ever had a chance to link up with the brain. i think that the main reason people choose not to believe the bible is because they dont want to be held accountable by its author.

  29. If you read the first chapter of Genesis carefully… then you will realize what really happened in the creation process. It accounts for dinasaures, the ice age and a vast amount of time. A true creationist does not believe in a young earth. Only creationists who don’t know the Bible spew a young earth. A key… there is a difference between the Hebrew word “made” and “create.”

  30. If the Anglican church were a true church, it would accept the account given in the beginning of the book they claim to believe! They are horrendous compromisers. Darwinism has done more to destroy humanity that preserve it.

    Also, isn’t it funny that Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born the same day and year, and yet no one remembers Lincoln? For shame…

  31. Question is: when does the CoE stop apologising for sins of the past?

    Additionally, would the apologies now cause the religious fundamentalists to reject the CoE as a bunch of sellouts, bowing to the will of the Church of Darwin(tm) and their corporate pay masters?

    Mark Purchase: That honestly is the biggest load of gobbeldy-gook I have seen written in a long time. It appears that the purpose of your few paragraphs of text is to confuse potential readers to accept your points as true, rather than to lay out your thought processes logically.

    In conclusion, the Bible is a fanciful story book at best, and anything written in it contains zero scientific fact, as an example the Bible states that the value of pi is three yet it is proven that the value of pie is 3.14159….

  32. At last. Perhaps the Church (and all churches) will now evolve as well.

    During Nostradamus’ time, no one knew germs caused disease. Chalking up disease to God’s wrath didn’t do much to ease bubonic plague. Good hygiene, however, did. Just because science does not currently have all the answers does not invalidate the scientific method. Insisting that evolution is “only a theory” only belies the lack of understanding of what “scientific theory” means.

    I suggest if someone is confused, they should read this article at Scientific American.

  33. My response to the attempts at debate;

    “I think we should all keep in mind this is just a theory, it has never been proven.” – Autumn
    Actually, Autumn, Evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world and a theory is our best explanation for it.
    The current state of our theory of gravity does not change the fact that things fall. Darwin’s original theory was highly incomplete but it has evolved over time. The state of our explanation does not change the fact that species evolve over time.

    Mr Purchase throws up so many incomplete thoughts, however I will attempt to address them in a congruous manner. I chose to do so in this forum and not by e-mail because I would like my thoughts to be scrutinised by as many readers as possible. Here goes…

    First of all, Purchase makes a huge mistake by assuming to know what Rev Dr Brown does and does not know. Unless Purchase can read Brown’s mind I think it is safe to say that he does, in fact, have no idea what Brown may or may not know.

    A quick scan of the list of “scientific” books which Purchase refers to shows that these are books written in an attempt to break down science, written by creationists. For example
    Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood M.J.Oard; Just So Stories R.Kipling and The Grand Canyon, a Different View T.Vail.

    “the science proof that resoundingly refutes the old 18th century theory.”
    Can you be more specific? Perhaps provide some clue as to which “science proof” you are referring to?

    “Dr Brown has no idea of the ‘incompatibles” between Darwinism and biblical Christianity”
    I am sure that he is quite aware of these “incompatibles”, yet has chosen to acknowledge the overwhelming weight of evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

    “The church leaders endeavoured(sic) to incorporate Darwinism into the church while Darwin himself rejected the attempt.”
    Prove it.

    “Dr Brown fails to realise “natural selection” is not evolution. It gets rid of information, it doesn’t create it. No amount of breeding or selection will produce a variety of species where there has been a total loss of information”
    Here Mr Purchase, you betray your complete lack of understanding of the principles of evolution. Look it up on wikipedia.

    “Dr Brown wrongly assumes science means evolution”
    Completely ridiculous assertion an Purchase’s part.

    “Biblical faith is based on knowledge (science) because the bible is true, evolution never stays the same and is based on stories”
    What a beautiful mental gyration you must have gone through to reach this conclusion. The Bible is based on science, whilst evolution is based on theories. Clearly you are trying to create a straw man by mischaracterising evolution, in an attempt to make your position easier to defend. This assertion is laughable.

    Lastly, Levi Davila, who is the “new God” to whom you refer? Surely you are not trying to imply that the CoE worships Darwin?

  34. Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

  35. “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

  36. Here’s an interesting link about evolution and the Bible.

    http://www.layhands.com/EvidenceAgainstEvolution.htm
    (there are many others if you google and read more into it)

    It’s a long article but very good and scroll down even to the part about “What about all the scientific evidence?”
    I think we should all keep in mind this is just a theory, it has never been proven.

  37. Dr Brown,

    Has no idea of the huge number of scientific books written by scientists who reject Darwinian evolution because of scientific reasons.
    http://answers.net.nz/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm

    Neither has Dr Brown any idea of their reasons, or the science proof that resoundingly refutes the old 18th century theory.

    Dr Brown has no idea of the ‘incompatibles” between Darwinism and biblical Christianity. No one has ever told him about the incompatibles nor has he ever read or studied the issue. He speaks from ignorance. Dr Brown fails to realise the bible supported Galileo, and Galileo believed the bible more than the church leaders of that day.

    Dr Brown fails to realise it was the church that was the first to embrace Darwinism not the scientists. The church leaders endeavoured to incorporate Darwinism into the church while Darwin himself rejected the attempt.

    Dr Brown fails to realise “natural selection” is not evolution. It gets rid of information, it doesn’t create it. No amount of breeding or selection will produce a variety of species where there has been a total loss of information.

    Dr Brown wrongly assumes science means evolution. It does not – science means knowledge. Dr Brown has no realisation that because of knowledge many reject Darwinian evolution. Biblical faith is based on knowledge (science) because the bible is true, evolution never stays the same and is based on stories.

    Dr Brown has made so many mistakes in his apology he should apologies for it. How sad to read about someone who speaks from ignorance and claims to speak for so many who know he is so ignorant. Do you disagree? Please write and say why- mpp@xtra.co.nz

    Mark Purchase B.Th, M.Th. Th.D, Ph.D.

    Auckland NZ

  38. The COE has taken an enormous step here by saying that good faith requires good science. The bible is a mythological story written by men in an attempt to help them understand their place in the world. The “scientific” opinions therein do not stand up to scrutiny.
    Religion requires faith, science requires evidence.

  39. So the C.O.E now proclaims a faith which it really doesn’t truely beleive in, what does it now stand for, is it little more than a social club and a place of convenience to get married in. John’s gospel when talking about Christ says “In the beginning the Word was with God , and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made”; So Christ was there at Creation, the . Genesis states that as God creates the Heavens and the plants and animals that it was good, he did’nt say in time it will get better, C.O.E accepts the Christ but rejects the creator. Is it any wonder the church pews are empty and Bible beleiving chuches are full.

  40. I can’t recall the source, but I seem to remember reading a news article recently that mentioned the Church of England was taking this step in response to the growing influence of creationists and others pushing the intelligent design argument. Whatever the reason, I find it a very responsible step on the part of the church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s