So, the Church of England is considering a public apology for their denial of evolution — it’s progress, I suppose, although CoE has never had the reputation of being particularly vicious towards evolution, and I’d be more impressed if the Baptists were asking forgiveness. Anyway, here’s a poll: Should the Church apologise to Charles Darwin?
Unfortunately, the only choices are “yes” and “no”. I was hoping for something like “Yes, the church ought to get on its knees and crawl in abasement to Science, kiss the hem of its robes, beg forgiveness, and donate all of its holdings and wealth to scientific funding agencies” or “No, the church is irrelevant, a pointless relic that ought to go crawl into a quiet corner and finish its business of dying.” Those are choices with some meat to them.
Hihi
Poll link seems broken -.-
Yep. No poll to crash at the moment
No. My churches should never admit to being wrong about anything. It’s a sign of weakness.
Besides, they’re never wrong about anything.
Hm,I thought they had already apologized,pretty much !
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-owes-darwin-an-apology-931276.html
No problem getting through: “Yes”- 80%
Yeah, the question begs further questions. As for me, the apology is useless, and I don’t want it from any religious organization that still maintains it’s irrational ideas and existence.
Oh,and that poll works just fine
When you consider that the catholic church didn’t get around to apologizing for that Galileo thing until 1992, having the CoE apologize in less than 150 years for its shortsightedness represents progress, I guess. It’s not for nothing that Anglicans are called “Catholic Lite.”
Who cares what they say they apologize for? Let them express their apology by supporting science or shut the hell up; otherwise it’s just the same lip service, rhetoric, bullshit and hand waving that they’ve used since their invention in an attempt to weild power.
In the grand scheme of things, what would an apology accomplish? It’s like a high priest after the Inquisition coming out and saying…”oops, we were wrong, um…sorry.”.
When I think of all the money that is tied up in churches. All the tithing, all the new construction, all the wealth, it just turns my stomach. People tithe and tithe, the churches keep making money hand over fist so they can build more churches to make more money. It’s not about “saving souls”. It’s about making money, just like everything else. They’re no different, except -of course- they are tax exempt.
Think of all the great things that could be accomplished if that wealth was redistributed to other areas. We live in a failing economy, in a world with diseases for which we’ve yet to find a cure. Think what life would be like if churches were laboratories, or observatories…or schools. Think what life would be like if we spent even a fraction of the time teaching science instead of teaching people not to think. Think of how life would be if one religion wasn’t always pitted against another. Think of how much greater this country of ours would be without a government that is so driven by their religious beliefs. God is great…my ass. It’s the whole concept of “god” that will eventually destroy us.
So, a simple “sorry” over a proven theory that a small child can undestand doesn’t cut it.
No, the CoE should not apologise to Charles Darwin.
Why should anyone today apologise for something somebody else did over 100 years ago. It’s political correctness gone mad.
One of Darwin’s descendants said it seemed a bit self-serving (the only reason to apologize after such a long period, he said, was to make the apologizer look good).
I don’t think it’s a big deal. myself, but I’m all for churches acting out of genuine humbleness.
As is probably well known, some of Darwin’s supporters were clerics who happened to be liberal Christians, and some of his opponents were non-clerics who didn’t agree with his arguments. Darwin’s reputation was affected in no way by the very weak opposition within the church, and when he died they did the honor of digging up his grave in Kent.
…and taking the body to be buried again in Westminster Abbey, which is about as high an honor as any Englishman could hope for, atheist or not.
I think the Church should apologize to, y’know, England, and then shut the hell up.
I think they and everyone else would be better served if they apologized to all the people who were taught sillyness instead of science because of their stance.
Being that Chuck is long dead and buried, I’m going to doubt he cares.
You know what I Think should happen?
They should say they’re sorry, and then notice that no media source gives a crap about what they think. Unfortunately, it’s all the contrary.
PZ – I’m not sure which one of your options to go with! You did manage to confuse me here. Although, I think I would have to go with “apologizing 200 years later to a dead person is (just one further) proof of irrelevance”…
They do understand he’s dead right? I mean, they don’t seem to know where to draw the line with “dead” and “alive” so just wondering…
Tony Blair was notorious for apologising on behalf of people he had no connection with for deeds that he clearly had not committed – the Irish potato famine, slavery, etc.
On the other hand, does anyone ever recall him apologising for something that he did do?
God @3: You consider the CoE one of your churches? I assumed you’d have disowned them for being so wishy-washy.
I would prefer that they apologize to mankind in general, rather than to a dead guy. Or perhaps they could apologize to their Anglican community.
Rather than simply insulting (or unfairly rejecting) a scientist, they inflict much more damage to their followers (and people interested in following) by using their authority to do so.
Dead people can’t be wronged; impressionable idiots can.
I’m afraid that answering the poll will give the mistaken impression that I give a rat’s ass what a church thinks about evolution.
I voted “No” because I simply can’t think of any good that such an apology would do.
Does the COE think that their apology will give them some sort of science-cred?
An apology would be to shut up, close up and spend their wealth for the needing.
I saw that story about the apology, my feelings are best summed up by an expression my grandmother used frequently:
“A day late and a pound short.”
ain’t no evolution going on out there, hell no. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/35249/title/Evolutions_Ear
Actually The Church of England is not expanding, it is contracting. Churches are being closed, rather than new ones built. On top of that it has difficulty making ends meet as there are a large number of retired clergy who need paying a pension and its income is dropping because of falling attendances. Anglicans have never been that generous anyway when it comes to giving money to the church. To make matters worse a good number of its churches are listed buildings (because of either historical or architectural merit) which means the church is required by law to keep maintained to a certain standard. The only public funds the Church gets are grants towards the cost of that maintenance.
PZ wrote: “Those are choices with some meat to them.”
I would have liked a choice like, “No: Who gives a flying #@*& what they think anymore?”
Why all the griping? The point is not that it will be useless to Uncle Charles, but the strong symbolism of a religious organisation formally apologising for doubting evolution.
That’s important!
Well, one concept I retain from the Catholic confessional (and one of the few bits of doctrine I still find laudable) is the notion of penance. Asking for forgiveness is useless unless you’re willing to do something to try and set things right. How would the C of E set things right? A multi-million pound donation to the biology faculties of Cambridge and Oxford? Given they’re on the brink of a schism and dealing with declining attendance, where would they get the money? Perhaps Her Majesty, as head of the faith, could get the money together.
This is a problem with institutions apologizing for things they did centuries ago. You can’t hold anyone directly accountable and you can’t make it up to those directly wronged. It smacks of Old Testament reasoning, which implies you bear some of the burden of your great-great-grandfather’s crimes. Personally, I don’t waste my time attacking religion on whatever sins were committed in its name centuries ago. Partly because I’m better informed on the historical context than most, but mostly because I don’t see the point bringing up ancient history as an indictment of religion when there are plenty of relevant evils it perpetuates today. This kind of “apology” lets religion come off as contrite and humble while completely glossing over today’s sins, and I for one don’t want to let them off the hook.
I think the question is what is the point.
The C of E has long supported the teaching of evolution and opposed the teaching of creationism. There are leading Anglicans who were co-signatories with Richard Dawkins to a letter sent to Tony Blair asking he ensure creationism does not get a foothold in the UK schools.
As far as I am concerned the CoE did “apologize”. Look where Darwin is buried. There is no need for a modern day apology.
It really isn’t. The CoE is in no position to have an opinion on evolution. It didn’t matter when they doubted it and it still doesn’t matter that they (if they, in fact, do) accept it.
Let them come out and say, “as a religious institution, we acknowledge that we aren’t the best people to be expressing opinions about scientific matters,” and I’ll be impressed.
If I recall that was actually against his wishes.
#25…Sorry, I was speaking as an American. Churches are sprouting up like weeds over here.
One of the consecuences of the Galileo affair, is that the catholic church has tried to avoid any further direct confrontation with science.
At lest “The PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES” prevents then to say to much nonsense, since today it´s members are real scientist of many faiths.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm
They were the responsible of promoting the apology to galileo, and the lukewarm acceptance of evolution (“as a posible explanation of human origins…”).
And the jesuits have several good astronomic observatories.
Of course, that does not prevents then to promote noonsense, like the holes in the ruber of the condoms (which was rebuked by the PAS).
Probably what i found more unfortunate is that there are sectors in the caholic church that are sorry even for those litle advances. More than once i have argue with a catholic “come on… but even the vatican accepts that…”
I’m not sure what the Church is apologizing for. Sticking their nose into science where they don’t belong? Or failing to be quick enough to “reconcile” a science theory with their theology?
I suspect it’s the latter. They thought evolution had bad implications for Christianity, but it turns out they didn’t have to think it had bad implications for Christianity, after all. They can spin the theology to fit along with the discovery! What a relief. Their mistake. Oopsie.
Charlie can rest easy now.
#7 Lee Picton When you consider that the catholic church didn’t get around to apologizing for that Galileo thing until 1992, having the CoE apologize in less than 150 years for its shortsightedness represents progress, I guess.
My understanding is that that the CC didn’t actually apologize – they apologized only for being factually wrong, but not for attempting to condemn a person for disagreeing with them, whether they were right or wrong. It’s the latter that matters, not whether they just happened to be wrong about the facts – but whether it is right to condemn someone for simply not being powerful enough in their little pyramid scheme.
Yes, the Church should apologize to all of the scientists who were persecuted and questioned despite having it right.
More importantly, though, the Church should apologize to its followers for misinforming them for so many years, while the right answer was right in front of its face.
“He’s dead, Jim.”
The CoE needs to look forward to their utter irrelevance.
– Matt Penfold
Yeah, but by the time they actually buried him, I believe he wasn’t bothered either way.
I just caught a few minutes of some discussion panel on tv where the topic seemed to be that the Church of Sweden intends to apologize for the way it has discriminated against its female members (hint: former state church) and in particular against female priests and women wanting to become priests (the C.o.S. has allowed female priests since 1958), or something like that. In reply to a question about how the church intends to apologize, a bishop said something to the effect that they would confess their wrongdoings in prayer to God. But shouldn’t they direct their apology to the actual victims of discrimination, the bishop was asked. Well, no, that is a question for the responsible party in each individual case, said the bishop.
It would be fun to see a comprehensive list of this type of apologies issued by various established churches for their past sins.
How do you apologise to someone hwo is dead, he is dead right.
taking the body to be buried again in Westminster Abbey, which is about as high an honor as any Englishman could hope for, atheist or not.
Maybe, but speaking as an Englishman, I agree with what Woody Allen said:
“I don’t wanna live on in the hearts of my countrymen. I wanna live on in my apartment!”
Wouldn’t an unreserved apology for filling people’s heads with lies and crap for hundreds of years be more befitting, for thereafter closing down the whole rotten institution.
And also demand the same from the filthy catlickers and pope Siegheil II!
Would be a good start on a new millenium.
I find it difficult to believe that any benefits will accrue to this or any other posthumous apology. Why not just say “we were wrong and now realize it.” In no way will it matter to Darwin.
How about “We apologise for all the abuse suffered by children at the hands of our clerics, and we are currently compiling a complete list of these criminals to hand over to the authorities a.s.a.p.”
THAT would impress me. Nothing less.
Actually, that should have been “We apologise for the systematic cover-up of abuse suffered by children at the hands of our clerics, and we are currently compiling a complete list of these criminals to hand over to the authorities a.s.a.p”
That’s better.
The church of england is small potatoes even if Charles was one of their clergy. What inquiring minds want to know is why hasn’t he been knighted? If Roger Daltrey is enought to deserve this award why not Darwin?
In fairness to the C of E, it does not seem to have gone in for the same level of cover up regarding child abusing priests as their Catholic colleagues have done. Certainly I am not aware of it being official policy not to report such priests to the authorities although I am sure individual bishops decided not do so.
The CofE is a very silly, fragmented, irrelevant institution kept alive by a combination of sheer inertia and political gimmickry. Oh, and Prince Charles likes it – it’s a sort of shiny toy for him to play with. It should apologise to History for being pointless, and then disband.
Can we disband Prince Charles at the same time ? He is more of a menace to science than the Church of England ever was. There is not a single scientific issue on which he is not willing to show how little he understand.
I actually think an apology like this has a certain symbolic value. I like when churches admit that they’re not infallible. Just puts one more chink in the armor.
And I’m tickled pink by the other poll questions that were up when I went to vote:
Do you believe Jill Dando was assassinated by Serbia?
What’s the best bet in the Merseyside derby?
Will Steve Harmison ever play for England again?
Good to know that this is being considered in such a serious, sober venue.
The Baptists more than anyone else have been trying to dumb down science education. They have a lot to apologize for. If it was up to me they would be put in prison for treason.
BobC #52:
Only by Americans. All of the USA’s major competitors should be giving the Baptists knighthoods or whatever their local equivalent is.
Considering that the CoE’s entire reason for existence was solely so that a certain corpulent (or maybe not yet so corpulent at the time) fellow could have official sanction for putting his wanker where another corpulent fellow in Rome did not approve, it’s remarkable the whole shaky edifice has lasted this long. Almost a miracle. . . .
I’m a bit baffled about what the CoE is apologizing for. As far as I know they never took an official stand against Darwin or against his theories (though individuals within the church did [and other individuals within supported Darwin and his theories]). It is most likely to make it clear to other christians (including members of their own church) that the CoE has no problem with science including evolution. Anyone know what the stand is on science of the conservative Anglican churches in Nigeria/Uganda/Rwanda/…?
What the CoE does need to apologize to are women and gays for the second class treatment they have been/are getting from the church; however, I don’t see that happening soon.
Question: how are they planning on apologizing to a dead man?
The church also apologised to Giordano Bruno. Never mind they burnt him on the stake back in 1600. I bet he now feels real good about it… The Vatican are f’ing hypocrites.
[quote]Besides, they’re never wrong about anything.[/quote]
Except for the above statement
“One of Darwin’s descendants said it seemed a bit self-serving (the only reason to apologize after such a long period, he said, was to make the apologizer look good).”
Smart fellow, does the family name proud. I’d prefer they didn’t apologize, because if they do, then some people might think it actually means something.
A quote on one of my LJ friends’ LJ said “Never apologize. Your friends don’t need it, and your enemies won’t believe it.” Seems appropriate here.
Sort of reminds me of when the Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 and all those Sox fans were “apologizing” to Bill Buckner and “forgiving” him. His response, from the wilds of Idaho to where he fled, was basically “Fuck all y’all.” He didn’t even watch the World Series, opting to go to a BSU football game instead.
Of course, as others have pointed out, it’s not like the church burned Darwin at the stake or anything.
It is pointless for Church of England to apologize TO Charles Darwin – he’s dead; however, the Church can apologize to the world for past mistakes. That is a good thing. Official apologies for past mistakes are way to help prevent future institutional hubris. It also makes way for healthy doubt: gee, if the Church was wrong about evolution, maybe it is also wrong on this Jesus thing as well.
The Church of Cthulhu owes an apology to Charles Darwin for that unfortunate incident with the tentacles.
I think the church should apologize to its congregation for misleading them.
#55 Erp
I think we could take an educated guess…
Neocons and Theocons at GAFCON?
http://signposts02.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/neocons-and-theocons-at-gafcon/
Will be interesting to see if the theocrat nutters now put their money where their mouth is, ditching their Anglican umbrella and becoming a bona fide little cult in their own right.
Cosmic Teapot: “It’s political correctness gone mad.”
QFT.
Does the CoE have nothing productive to do?
What does the church need to apologise to Darwin for? Apologising to all the people who they taught that evolution was wrong too would seem more appropriate. Darwin isn’t owed anything really.
Of course the apology is symbolic of the church’s role in suppressing evolution and pushing known falsehoods on a population rather than a literal apology to Darwin, and in that there is some value to the gesture. And right now gestures like that are needed given the radical protestant movement is pushing strongly against scientific knowledge, even if it is just to save their own (CoE) hides in keeping a moderate religion.