Archbishop: "Stop Teaching Creationism"

[GCP]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.
Giving his first, wide-ranging, interview at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.

"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," he said.
The debate over creationism or its slightly more sophisticated offshoot, so-called "intelligent design" (ID) which argues that creation is so complex that an intelligent - religious - force must have directed it, has provoked divisions in Britain but nothing like the vehemence or politicisation of the debate in the US. There, under pressure from the religious right, some states are considering giving ID equal prominence to Darwinism, the generally scientifically accepted account of the evolution of species. Most scientists believe that ID is little more than an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching.

States from Ohio to California are considering placing ID it on the curriculum, with President George Bush telling reporters last August that "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." The archbishop's remarks place him firmly on the side of science.

Damn - makes me proud to be British!

[Taxloss]

1. Makes me proud as well.

And, thanks to the fact that the church of England is an Established church, this can overrule the schools, I believe.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I don't think so - Vardy's schools are non-denominational

so no church can direct them. It's entirely up to Vardy, his governors, headteachers and teachers, as long as they fulfill the National Curriculum. If any C of E voluntary-aided schools were thinking of teaching creationism, this should have an effect there, though.

You do know Williams used to be Dean of Clare College, don't you? :-)

[Taxloss]

6. Yes, it's a college with a strong liberal tradition.

Latimer was there, famously. Plus another dean there was Maurice Wiles, an extremely distant relative of mine and noted Anglican sceptic:

http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/thought/wiles.htm

[baby_mouse]

2. An wise approach.

Well done, sir!

[ChristianLibrul]

3. ID v Ego

If theofascists didn't have a pathological need to be better than everybody else, they'd realize two things: The Bible isn't a weapon God gave us to demonize people we don't like; the Bible isn't a scientific textbook.

Anyone can accept the Bible as divinely-inspired writings by men who wished to explain God, as they understood Him/Her/It. That something like "The Creation" wasn't exactly understood scientifically thousands of years ago takes nothing away from the Bible or its authors.

Claiming that the King James Bible is literally true does. It is the least accurate translation from the Greek, as has been shown many times. Insisting it is The Truth is exactly like insisting Saddam had WMDs and backed 9-11.

[wryter2000]

11. Well done, Christianlibrul

I've often tried to make the same points but haven't done it so well.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[TrogL]

17. There are worse translations than the KJV

But biblical literalism is doomed to failure.

Heck, four words into the Bible and you're already in trouble.

"In the beginning, God..." implies that God was there before the beginning, implying a beginning before the beginning and we're chasing our tail. It also contradicts the beginning of John.

[liberal N proud]

4. Excellent article

[Joe_VB]

7. Down with George Wahington, God save the King...............

Is it to late for me to change sides?

[Toots]

8. Well God is so complex he must have been created by an intelligent being

:shrug: Like maybe man.

[DavidDvorkin]

9. Toots, that's brilliant.

I mean it. That's a wonderful, concise response to the argument from complexity.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Always said Man created God in his own image...deeply flawed. nt

[wryter2000]

10. Makes me proud to be Episcopalian

That's my (former) church.

[savemefromdumbya]

12. Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism (Guardian UK 3/21/06)

Here we have the head of the Church of England saying:

Archbishop: stop teaching creationism

Williams backs science over Bible

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Tuesday March 21, 2006
The Guardian

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.
Giving his first, wide-ranging, interview at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html

:applause:

[Dragonbreathp9d]

13. Alright! Props to him!

[LynnTheDem]

14. KUDOS to Archbishop Williams!

Who, btw, denounced bush's illegal immoral unjust Hitleresque war of aggression against Iraq (as did most church leaders around the world, INCLUDING bush's own.)

[savemefromdumbya]

15. He's definitiely (one of us)

dynamite!

[AX10]

16. KICK and recomended!

[teknomanzer]

19. Problems with intelligent design...

First off, if life was created by an intelligent designer, by what means did the designer come into being? (cue the sound of crickets)

Next, upon critical examination it appears that systems develop from simple forms into more complex forms. The development of complex life is no more supernatural than the development of a solar system from a cloud of dust and gas. In other words, there is no need for an intelligent designer - evolution is the result of the laws of nature. Why is it necessary for the universe to have been created? Why can't we assume that it has always been, in a constant state of flux, expanding and collapsing? What if there is no beginning and no end? Is that too hard to imagine? More difficult to imagine than some immense superbeing who has nothing better to do than to monitor and intervene in the goings on of a mediocre group of hairless talking primates isolated on some insignificant rock hurling about an average star in the spiral arm of one of trillions or more existing galaxies?

Lastly, if the intelligent designer is in fact God then I say prove it... your assertion must be testable. If you can't test the claim its not science its fantastic speculation and shouldn't be taught in a science class.