Rowan Williams has set himself apart from the religious fundamentalists with his comments on the teaching of creationism in 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,”
Well, it is nice to see a church leader openly stating that the biblical stories of the creation are just that; stories. Attempts to suggest that the ancient Hebrew myths really do tell us how the universe was created and treating those stories as science are mendacious. As a counter to the obvious lack of science in what are clearly the myths of an ancient civilisation attempting to explain what they did not understand, the fundamentalists present us with the oxymoronic “intelligent design”.
This, too is not scientific and has no place in science classes.
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.
There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design. Unlike the pseudo science of ID, Darwin’s theory of evolution follows standard scientific practice. The theory can be tested by observation and so far has withstood the scrutiny. Indeed, we see it happening with, for example, MRSA.
So, more power to Rowan Williams. By all means discuss these myths and legends in religious education classes, but let’s not pretend they are science; they are not.
I’m not sure about Rowan Williams. He comes out with this and I agree with him yet said nothing in support of gay people within the church, preferring to go against what he said he would do and instead siding with the conservative elements within the C of E. He does seem to be a good guy but intrinsically weak.
I think that is a fair analysis. Still, I guess you can’t have it all. :whistle:
Re creationism, Rowan Williams’ view is the norm in Christianity. Sensible commentaries have been saying this for years. It is a sad penomenom of the last century that fundamentalists have crept back into a bunker.
Re Jonathan’s point, I hoped for a more forward looking stance on gay people. Such is his belief but believe you me he has a very difficult job holding the Anglican communion togther both internationally and within UK. I hope he doesn’t give too much ground to the likes of Akinola on this.
He has a brilliant mind and his reputation in Cambridge was very positive from his time there. However, much of the church is sadly proving unleadable.
BTW knowing your interest in bikes, I used to live on Isle of Man. Have you been to the TT?
Fortunately, in the UK, fundamentalism has less of a grip than it does in the USA where several states have voted to have creationism taught in schools as if it was a science. With the president calling for it to be given equal status as science is a sad state of affairs.
With regards to the potential split in the Anglican church, perhaps if the differences cannot be reconciled, a split is the best long term solution.
I’ve been to the TT several times. I was planning to go again this year, but circumstances meant I had to cancel. I hope to make the centenary next year. 😉