Well, as an Anglican (which presumably counts as a 'mainline' church), all I can offer here is to agree to disagree about this. But I take it your view confirms that the 'debate' around Darwin really isn't about the science, but about religion? I can understand that.
I have stated here before, and see no reason to change my mind, that the main problem that Creationists have with Evolution is they see it interfering with the "special" relationship Man has with God (Man is just another animal). This makes them feel insecure and so they attack Evolution and with it most of the "hard" sciences since they are all interconnected and support each other.
They feel threatened - it doesn't have to be that way.
>Well, as an Anglican (which presumably counts as a 'mainline' church), all I can offer here is to agree to disagree about this. But I take it your view confirms that the 'debate' around Darwin really isn't about the science, but about religion? I can understand that.
My comment is really related to the headline of your post: "Churches urged to back evolution." Churches shouldn't really be backing anything except the Bible and its principles. It may make "mainline" churches popular with the secular press and liberals to "back" evolution, gay rights, abortion, or a number of other issues that are not traditional Christian values, but invariably churches that do so will die, and fundamentalist churches (the ones that "back the Bible") will prosper.
I generally avoid discussions on FR about creation and evolution because it always degerates into what I call a "food fight." I consider myself a creationist, not for religious reasons, but for scientific ones.