Posted on 03/21/2006 8:10:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The spiritual leader of the world‘s Anglicans does not believe that creationism -- the Bible-based account of the world‘s origins -- should be taught in schools.
"I don‘t think it should, actually. No, No," said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, reflecting on the bitter education debate over religion and science that has so divided the United States in particular.
Williams, head of a church which has no problem with the Darwinian theory of evolution, told the Guardian newspaper: "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory, like other theories."
Asked if he was comfortable with the teaching of creationism in schools, the mild-mannered and usually cautious theologian said: "Not very. Not very."
In the battle to bring God into the classroom, Christian conservative supporters of creationism and intelligent design seek to deny or downgrade the importance of evolution.
Intelligent design proponents say that nature is so complex that it must have been the work of a creator rather than the result of random natural selection as outlined in Charles Darwin‘s theory of evolution.
Williams‘ stance echoes the position of the Roman Catholic Church, the world‘s largest single Christian denomination, which has weighed into the debate by praising a U.S. court decision that rejected the intelligent design theory as non-scientific.
Catholicism, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed.
British businessman Peter Vardy has funded schools in northern England that came under attack for teaching creationism in biology classes.
But the creationist movement has certainly not taken hold as strongly in Britain as it has in the United States.
"Religion has become politicized in America. That is not the case here. This is not a major issue," religious commentator and broadcaster Clifford Longley told Reuters.
"There is no intellectual credibility given to creationism in this country. There is no parallel between English evangelicals and American evangelicals.
"When I wrote an article saying there were no creationists in Britain, they both wrote to me."
|
I'm not an Anglican, but I'll take my allies where I can find them.
It surely doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that today's "leaders" of many of the mainstream Christian (and,I suspect,Jewish) denominations are,in fact,atheists.
And the leader of today's Anglican Church certainly seems to belong in that category.
I am an Anglican, and agree with Rowan on this, but he is a weak sister and certainly able to be critized.
As a point of order, the Archbishop is NOT really the head of the Anglican church. More like a first among equals.
Part of the check-and-balance put in place because of the abuses they saw in the roman church, which was centralized.
No, Rowan is not an atheist, but he is a weenie.
There's a difference.
Darn. I searched on "Anglican" which is in the title. It looks like the article I posted is a bit different.
Does that go for the Pope too? The Vatican's official stance is pro-Darwin.
Heh. Maybe Creationists will start cursing Main Stream Religion (MSR) like most of us curse MSM.
Sorry,can't argue matters of religion with an atheist.Other matters,sure....but not religion.
They're different. I don't think I ever received a good grade in science classes (or engineering for that matter) on the basis of effort. :)
What you say is probably true....But what difference does it make since the children in government schools are being denied an education oriented to making their way in this world.
Arguing about creationism or evoluition is re-arranging the deck chairs and will not put an end to the conspiricy of dems and teachers unions exchanging votes for money while children lose as a result.
I got me the only true religion and everybody else is crawling in the muck of Satan - placemarker.
Assuming you're right, it shows that even a gay liberal knows the difference between science and theology. I don't know why so many creationists can't also figure it out. Anyway, I think he's correct on the evolution issue. As for the rest, you can play the "guilt by association" game if you like. But it's nonsensical.
"When I wrote an article saying there were no creationists in Britain, they both wrote to me."
hahahahahahaaa!!!
So many nominal Christians are getting suckered into anti-God cults like Evolution, and Reincarnation. By the time they find out the truth it will be too late for them.
If that's his version of going out on a limb, I wonder what he would say if he were being circumspect.
"Not very comfortable" with it...does that mean he's "somewhat comfortable"? "Rather cozy if a bit damp, but it wears well"? "Comfortable in the main, but it chafes a bit 'round the edges"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.