-2 votes

Church of England accepts Evolution, offers apology.


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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ecorob's picture

In related news...

Church this Sunday has been cancelled.

No word yet from the Church on the atrocities of the inquisition.

Film at 11.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Jesus did it. Look at this

Jesus did it. Look at this old book.
-Religious, anti evolution quacks.

lol. looks like england has a

lol. looks like england has a new dogma and there's some role reversal going on here.


What is reason? What does the Enlightenment Era mean?

Evolution is a fact, demonstrated in numerous fields. There's tens of thousands of scientists who utilize it and study it everyday.

So explain via reason how a random person's opinion, who is not a professional, can disprove evolution when the preponderance of evidence and professional opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of it.

Even the Pope and now the Church of England disagrees with you.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

for evolution to be science

it would have to be testable and repeatable.

I have been told all my life birds evolved from reptiles, we have reptiles, design a way for those reptiles to evolve into birds again.

I have been told all my life that humans evolved from apes. Design a test where an ape has a baby as smart as a human.

You guys say that fish grew lungs and legs and came out of the water. Take a tuna or salmon or some type of fish and design a test where they have a baby that evolves lungs or legs or something.

Design a test where a virus produces bacteria or bacteria produces a virus.

How about this you guys say life came about by chance, if it can happen by accedent make it happen on purpose.

since you guys say that all of these things takes thousand or millions of years, I just want to see the test, you would perform under controlled conditions to make evolution happen over those thousand or millions of year.

For you to believe that evolution is science

you would have to be literate, and rational.
And I mean literate not in the basest sense, I mean comprehension of what you read.

You are clearly conflating evolution with speciation, and the question of how life began.

Evolution is simply genetic change over time driven by factors which affect reproduction.
It has been documented. They have done experiments. It exists.
Here is an excellent example:

As to whether or not it those changes can lead to speciation ( the creation of new species )...
It is possible to take a portion of a population of one organism and, through selective pressure, get that population's decedents to the point where they cannot breed with original population their ancestors came from.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

Once two populations can no longer reproduce with one another, they can no longer exchange genetic material through reproduction and thus are two separate (by some definitions of the term) species.

So, given that:
We know evolution explains how gene frequency changes over time within a population.
We know that mutations can happen.
We know that statistically some mutations will be beneficial.
We know populations of organisms can become reproductively isolated from other populations of the same organism.
We can observe that there are significant genetic similarities between different species.
It is reasonable to believe for the time being that evolution could account for the various species we see in the world.

With respect to how life started. Evolution does not explain that at all.


so I am supposed to believe evolution when half of the article you posted literally says that you guys cant even figure out what speciation is. Thats the issue.

Do I believe that one generation is different than the next. Yes. Do I believe the bananas and the dog are related. no.

The problem we have here is you look at say corn and say look there are hundreds of types of corn, so you say we are related to corn. I look at hundreds of types of corn and say hey isnt it amazing that God made plants and animals to adapt to their environment. Adaptation does not mean that corn can turn into tomatoes it just means corn turns into another type of corn. Adaptation does not mean dogs turn into cats, it just means dogs turn into a different kind of dog.

Frankly put the only debate worth debating on evolution is speciation. The reason why you want to dodge the debate is you dont know of any real case where it happened. E coli bacteria 50,000 generations latter is still e coli bacteria, slightly adapted for its environment, but e coli bacteria.

Lets see reptiles turn into birds. Lets see see fish go from gills to lungs from fins to feet. lets see virus go to bacteria. If you believe in evolution you believe these things happened, show it. You claim its science. if so then it must be testable and repeatable. Well repeat it.

again I am not arguing that corn does not change from generation to generation, I am arguing that corn will not turn into say tomatoes. The changes that occur genetically happen due to a loss of data. That is the reason why you see some speciation, where a type of say dog can no longer breed with another type of dog. This should occur most apparently in places where there is a period of inbreeding, where there is an aria of small population of the say dog. The inbreeding leads to a time period of a faster loss of genetic data from generation to generation.

That said after seeing the paper where the academics say they can not figure out where speciation occurs is hilarious. For thousands of years farmers have been able to tell when speciation has occurred, but the academics are arguing about it. This is how farmers speciated their cattle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cattle_breeds

you're conflating evolution with anthropogenesis

along with the beginning of life. These things are all different.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that lifeforms change and adapt to their environment or adversities over time. This is observable and quantifiable.

The theory of evolution seeks to explain why. Darwin's theory was that of natural selection. Natural selection is simply the genetics of a species being passed on to future generations the outcome of which is certain traits of the ancestors being passed on. In nature these "evolutionary" traits are propagated because mates will look for these qualities.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record


anthropogenesis. The scientific study of the origin and development of humans.

Both evolutionist and creationist believe that animals change over time. Creationist believe that it happens because of loss of data from one generation to the next. Evolution believes its due to gaining beneficial data over millions and billions of years although they have no issue with creatures loosing some dna from generation to generation.

Simply put for evolution to be proven a major change needs to be shown happening from generation to generation. The problem with that is according to the current hypothesis it takes thousands or millions of years to change. Since the current hypothesis says that fish eventually evolved lungs and legs, or reptiles eventually evolved into birds, etc, it would be interesting to see what someones idea of how to test this idea in a controlled environment looked like. Note I am a creationist but out of sheer curiosity I would love to see this put forward.

Take a moment to read this without preconceptions

I think you're severely confused.

Both evolutionist and creationist believe that animals change over time.

Why changes in physiology that benefit a species happen is what is being debated. Not that these changes happen. The changes are called evolution. The explanation as to why these changes are happening is the theory of evolution. They are completely separate.

Evolutionary theory aka "natural selection" and creationism are diametrically opposed. They seek to explain why these things happen. Creationist say God did it, "evolutionists" i guess, say these things happen because the lifeforms adapted to their adversities, and as such, passed those genes along over time and changed.

creationist believe that animals change over time.

You'd be the first creationist i ever met who said that and meant it. Because that would mean you believe in evolution.

The problem with that is according to the current hypothesis it takes thousands or millions of years to change.

No, it doesn't, smack whoever told you that in the face and call them sally. Evolutionary changes can happen in a few generations.

Take African elephants for example. There has been a huge boom in the tuskless elephant population. Whether this is due to genetic changes brought on by severe poaching, something more subtle like female elephants choosing tuskless mates because they're more handsome(or they hate seeing dead tusked elephants), God making them that way, or some combination of the three would be a theory as to why these changes are occurring. Not that they ARE occurring at all.

Theory's try to explain why.
Facts are observations of things that have occurred.

Anthropogenesis is applying the broad sense of evolution to humans and then trying to work backwards to see how we've changed. Some people think that we evolved from close hominid relatives, some don't. This is what's up for debate, not evolution in the broad sense, as it is an observable fact in nature.

Even anthropgenic researchers and scientists don't say that a fuzzy looking primate popped out a fully formed modern human. That's just absurd. They contend that a drastic change like that would take millions of years and successively different looking and acting generations, but not simple evolution.

Again you are conflating issues and discussion points. You are trying to disprove evolution, which is not possible, while looking at a THEORY of life on Earth and how it came to be. These are COMPLETELY different issues.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

When I say change over time I mean


when these cattle change into something that isnt cattle then its evolution.

That said I want to see one of the things my text book says happened happen again. I think the easiest (at least according to the text book) would be reptile to bird cause according to my text book it happened a few times.

please don't ignore the macro and micro distinction.

please don't ignore the macro and micro distinction.

I'm not debating theory right now

Which I'm pretty sure that's what you were trying to get me to do with that comment.

Not being a dick, just sayin.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I think we can pretty safely say that...

I think we can pretty safely say that The Church of England ceased to be Christian about 150 years ago, though if you talk to a lot of the Covenators in Scotland and Northern Ireland who were either murdered or had to flee to America (or were forcefully relocated to Australia) by Anglican authorities, there's been some question as to just how Christian England's official church has been going all the way back to the 17th century. Hearing that they've accepted this atheistic/materialist worldview isn't terribly surprising as they've largely clung to a temporal understanding of power as their substitute for papal tyranny.

I spent about 10 years believing in some modified version of Darwin's theories ( a consequence of being subjected to public schooling), and then I suddenly came to this epiphany that I didn't actually need to believe that I was descended from a retarded fish-frog in order to be a rational human being, I just simply had to think rationally. Since then, I've found greater joy in studying European history and reformed doctrine than trying to mentally wrap my head around the dozen or so bogus versions of abiogenesis that the scientific community passed off as the thing that will strike a death blow to those horrid Christian oppressors.

Maybe Dawkins will go back to being an Anglican now, and I'll continue to not give a hoot.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Shouldn't this be in the Humor section

I mean obviously the church of "England" is a joke.

church of england

accepted evolution as fact in like the 1880s. look up fredrick temple. Its one of the reason's why charles spurgeon hated the church of england.

Actually I think I believe in

Actually I think I believe in Von Daniken's theory presented in "Chariots of the Gods" I find it difficult to think Darwin's theory is scientifically viable...although some still walk among us scraping their knuckles on the ground. (sarcasm) The biblical theory can probably fit any of the theories out there.


I like the Von Daniken name-drop.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

By the year 2009 this will be old news.


Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

This Church of England

Is simply another church of satan!

Nothing shocking to say the least.

These churches that are falling away are spoken of in the Word of God and are a focal point of the end time.

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

End times? What have you been

End times? What have you been smoking buddy?

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

Evolution is yet to be fully explained

I am sorry to see the Church of England throw in the towel. Darwin's mechanisms are far from being fully understood and there has yet to be a complete explanation of how random processes can change one body plan into another.

More and more honest scientists are beginning to admit that there are problems with the theory although they may not yet be ready to admit that life was intelligently designed.

When science can explain convincingly how nature left to its own devices can create a four letter code and the mechanism to translate that code into the nucleotides that are used to build proteins (i.e., a decoder) then science will have made a giant leap toward explaining how organisms are built. Proteins are only the building blocks. Scientists must also explain how those building blocks are assembled into tissues, tissues assembled into organs, and organ assembled into body plans. In other words, where are the assembly instructions stored and how are they converted into a living organism? Not until then will the theory of evolution be fully explicated.

Scientist will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that life is intelligently designed.

I believe life is

I believe life is intelligently designed, but how could you possibly believe that a 2,000 year old book of contradictions explains it?

This thread is disappointing to me. Religion is a lie.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

I wasn't aware Intelligent

I wasn't aware Intelligent Design was fully explicated.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

Much of the mechanisms that

Much of the mechanisms that are present in DNA are being uncovered as we speak. But to understand DNA, you have to be able to read DNA.

And you do understand that to our knowledge so far, the DNA molecule is the most complex and intricate molecule ever encountered in nature?

10 years ago decoding 1 genome would cost you millions.

Today it costs $99.

Now that reading it is no longer a challenge scientists can begin unraveling the mysteries of how it works. But WAIT. Look at Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Companies and universities have been playing with the genetic code for decades, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. But we are beginning to understand how it works, and very soon, it will be common knowledge.

PS. I want to see these scientists that you claim doubt evolution, as I have not heard of any biologists that come to that conclusion for about a century now.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

If you want to see a biologist who

doesn't believe in the theory of "from goo to zoo to you", there is one who lives a mile from me. (PhD in biology from George Mason University)

Does he have anything published?

I would gladly check out any published work he may have. Has he published any scientific writing or work that I can take a look at?

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

we are hundreds of years

from understanding dna. Right now dna is like having the blue prints for an entire city, every building, electrical grid, roads, schools, sewage, etc. And right now we can put one set of blue prints next to other and see that some of the letters are the same and in the same spot. But we dont know how to change the directions for how the building is made or redraw the roads on the map.

Basically we can tell what letters are the same but we dont understand the words or the grammar. The reason why thats a problem is because our body interprets that dna and does stuff based on what the dna says to do so we need to legibly tell our body what to do.

Maybe after a few hundred years we will figure out how to do cool things like increasing muscle density, increasing longevity, increasing intelligence, reflex whatnot. I imagine this would happen after some very unethical long term experiments.

Hundreds of years? Did you

Hundreds of years? Did you literally pull a random number out of your ass and thought "this is a good number, I'm going to put it in my argument today!"

It took humanity less then a hundred years from first flight to visiting the moon. Less then a 40 years from figuring out e=mc2 to atom bom . Less then 2 decade between a network and world wide internet. Science is the most powerful tool humanity has ever discovered. No amount of religious horseshit will ever even come close.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

since it will take full generation

to figure out all the affects of intentionally sequencing dna, yes it will take hundreds of years. Especially since you will only be able to sequince parts of it at a time, have to do it over several people and since at this point the only time we can even mess with someone's dna is when they are a very early stage embryo I would think it would take hundreds of years.

For instance most of the advantages of changing someones dna would not take place until they are an adult you would be waiting at least 18 years to find out if it worked.

If it was a to see if you could extend youth or extend someones natural life cycle you would have to wait 60 70 80 years.

that said randomly messing with an embryos dna (and this would likely need to happen to hundreds of embryos at a time) would likely tick a whole lot of people off.

Why are you getting so upset with the idea of a long term scientific study of genetics? Its obvious that as long as you do not have a way to manipulate an adults dna that its something that will take generations to study.

That said comparing engenering to biology is stupid, you have a whole lot more wiggle room with engeenering than you do biology. if you have a problem with a machine you turn it off and replace a part, if you have a problem with a living organism you have to wait weeks or months for it to heal. Physics just demands infrastructure to study. In biology we still cant even produce an artificial womb.