Church Authorities Back Darwin

[Major Tom]

From The Times Anglicans back Darwin over 'noisy' creationists -Times Online September 13, 2008 <H1 class=heading>Anglicans back Darwin over 'noisy' creationists</H1><H2 class="sub-heading padding-top-5 padding-bottom-15"> The Church of England expressed deep concerns last night about the spread of creationist views as it prepared to unveil a website promoting the evolutionary views of Charles Darwin.</H2>Anglican leaders fear that “noisy” advocates of a literal interpretation of the Bible - especially in the United States, where even the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is a vocal supporter - are infecting the perception of Christianity worldwide.

 

The Church will launch the website on Monday, a few weeks after the 150th anniversary of Darwin's first public proposal of natural selection and amid growing controversy over the teaching of creationism in schools. The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and director of education at the Royal Society, provoked a furore this week when he called for creationism to be treated in science lessons as a legitimate “world-view”.

 

function slideshowPopUp(url) { pictureGalleryPopupPic(url); return false; } The Church of England weighed into the debate yesterday when a Church House spokesman admitted that the treatment of Darwin's theory of evolution by Victorian clerics was wrong.He said that science and religions were “perfectly compatible” and attacked creationism as a strand of Christianity that created a false impression of the Church as a whole.

 

The Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, one of the inspirations for the website, said: “We felt there would be public interest, particularly because of the rise of creationism in the US.

 

“Christian attitudes don't have to be either a complete swallowing of Darwin and everything that has been done in his name, on the one hand, and, on the other, the complete rejection of scientific method with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

“A culture that doesn't have a great deal of historic understanding of the Christian faith can easily characterise all Christians as being like the most noisy ones.”

 

A church spokesman added: “Creationism should not be taught as a scientifically based theory but could be included in discussion of the development of scientific ideas down the ages or in RE.”

 

Rasmandala Das, of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, said that the Hindu approach was to teach all different views of the creation across the curriculum.

 

Members of the humanist movement dismissed creationism as “simply wrong” but agreed that religious believers must be engaged by science teachers rather than ignored.

 

Andrew Copson, director of education for the British Humanist Association, said that Professor Reiss was right to think it was better to take the opportunity to debate the issue than to belittle children by telling them: “Shut up, that's for RE. Should a teacher say, ‘Shut up, that's for RE'? Obviously not,” he said. “If a child raises it in a classroom you don't say, ‘Shut up'. You say, ‘That's not a scientific perspective.' It can be an opportunity to demonstrate what a scientific perspective is.”

 

Tahir Alam, of the Muslim Council of Britain, expressed concern that there was a rising trend of intolerance towards religious beliefs and said: “Secular atheism is getting very dogmatic.” Mr Alam said of creationism in science lessons: “In any educational context, if children raise questions and have beliefs which are different to the teachers, people should not be dogmatic about not discussing it.”

 

However, Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield, head of the Movement for Reform Judaism, expressed doubts: “It would be as unacceptable for Judaism for schools to teach creationism in science lessons as it would be for them to teach the Dawkins secular fundamentalist view that Darwin and God are incompatible.”

[Legion]

I think they’ve basically been pushed into a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation. I believe for them to reject evolution is to ostracize thinkers from the flock and to accept evolution is to open the Bible up to virtually any interpretation.

[Neon Genesis]

Andrew Copson, director of education for the British Humanist Association, said that Professor Reiss was right to think it was better to take the opportunity to debate the issue than to belittle children by telling them: “Shut up, that's for RE. Should a teacher say, ‘Shut up, that's for RE'? Obviously not,” he said. “If a child raises it in a classroom you don't say, ‘Shut up'. You say, ‘That's not a scientific perspective.' It can be an opportunity to demonstrate what a scientific perspective is.”

So why doesn't anyone want to teach the controversy about alchemy in a chemistry class or the controversy that the Earth is flat in a geology class? And you most certainly would tell them to shut up if the student is asking the question to harass the teacher and other students into evangelizing the gospel, which you know that's what they're thinking when they say "teach the controversy."

 

These creationists who want to "teach the controversy" are not at all interested in honest scientific inquiry. The parents merely want to brainwash their kids into being creationist bots to turn the science class room into an extension of Sunday school. Why should science teachers waste theirs and the valuable learning time of the students who actually want to learn to indulge some brat's fantasy that can't handle reality? If they were honest about "teaching the controversy", there would be no creationists to be controversial about because they would be evolutionists and realize the obvious facts. If you don't understand germ theory, no one suggests turning the classroom into an anti-vaccine debate. You'd go pick up a book about germ theory and learn it yourself or actually pay attention to what's in the textbook so why should creationists of any sort be given any special privilege?

 

Tahir Alam, of the Muslim Council of Britain, expressed concern that there was a rising trend of intolerance towards religious beliefs and said: “Secular atheism is getting very dogmatic.” Mr Alam said of creationism in science lessons: “In any educational context, if children raise questions and have beliefs which are different to the teachers, people should not be dogmatic about not discussing it.

Should holocaust deniers be given free reign to promote antisemitism in history classrooms or is that being too closed minded and dogmatic? And I love that this guy claims to be all about religious freedom but sees secular atheism as a threat that must be stopped because of course we can't allow that freedom to exist yet dogmatic Islam should be allowed to. And if public schools should be required to teach religion in science classes, will churches and mosques be required to teach science classes in their religious meetings?

[Guest]

“Christian attitudes don't have to be either a complete swallowing of Darwin and everything that has been done in his name, on the one hand, and, on the other, the complete rejection of scientific method with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

 

What has been done "in Darwins name"? This line pisses me off because it implies that we worship Darwin, and also smells of "Hitler believed in Darwin, and look what he did".

 

It's nice they're accepting the theory, but they just can't not get a stab in there, can they?

[Legion]

What has been done "in Darwins name"? This line pisses me off because it implies that we worship Darwin, and also smells of "Hitler believed in Darwin, and look what he did".

 

It's nice they're accepting the theory, but they just can't not get a stab in there, can they?

I think that's a sharp observation Marty.

[Andy]

“A culture that doesn't have a great deal of historic understanding of the Christian faith can easily characterise all Christians as being like the most noisy ones.”

Now what culture would this be? Surely not Britain or America. Few cultures have a better understanding of the Christian faith than these.

[Guest I Love Dog]

“A culture that doesn't have a great deal of historic understanding of the Christian faith can easily characterise all Christians as being like the most noisy ones.”

Now what culture would this be? Surely not Britain or America. Few cultures have a better understanding of the Christian faith than these.

 

Britain and America know only too well what Christianity has done to the minds and bodies of the poor societies that suffered at the hands of those hell-bent on achieving power and wealth through the manipulation and corruption of the innocent ones. The Inquisitions and Crusades give an insight into the disgusting charades of Christianity in their pursuit of power and wealth at all costs.

 

Henry VIII, thank dog, realized what the RC Church was up to and put a stop to their game in U.K. He didn't go far enough and should have banned the church and religion altogether.