Anglicans Express Opposition to Creationism

YESTERDAY we posted this: British Scientist Wants to Teach Creationism, about Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, a member of the Royal Society, a biologist, and an ordained Church of England clergyman, who thinks creationism should be taught in schools as a legitimate point of view.

Today, in The Times of London, the same paper that carried the earlier article, we read Anglicans back Darwin over ‘noisy’ creationists. Excerpts:

The Church of England expressed deep concerns last night about the spread of creationist views as it prepared to unveil a website promoting the evolutionary views of Charles Darwin.

Anglican leaders fear that “noisy” advocates of a literal interpretation of the Bible – especially in the United States, where even the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is a vocal supporter – are infecting the perception of Christianity worldwide.

We’ve already discussed — several times — that Palin is getting a bad press over something that’s not quite true. Before continuing with the Anglican news, we’ll once again give you this source of accurate information about Sara Palin and creationism: offers this: Sliming Palin — False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain’s running mate.

Moving along now:

The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and director of education at the Royal Society, provoked a furore this week when he called for creationism to be treated in science lessons as a legitimate “world-view”.

Indeed he did. Continuing:

A church spokesman added: “Creationism should not be taught as a scientifically based theory but could be included in discussion of the development of scientific ideas down the ages or in RE.” [We think RE means Religious Education.]

Anyway, the article also says the Church will launch its evolution website on Monday, a few weeks after the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

5 responses to “Anglicans Express Opposition to Creationism

  1. From the fact checker article you linked to –

    ” It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin “was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons’ position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons’ story, telling the Chicago Tribune that “Sarah said to Mary Ellen, ‘What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?’

    It’s the “LIST of Books” that’s bogus.

    Why would someone ask the librarian that??!!

    Also, anything about the rape kits yet?

  2. Nothing about rape kits. I haven’t seen that issue actively promoted by the media. Blogs, maybe, but the national press hasn’t picked up on it. Be patient.

  3. Update: Casey Luskin’s lasting ravings, Darwinist Brits in a Snit Over Suggestion of Discussing Creationism in Science Classes, at least demonstrate that Reiss isn’t a creationist nutcase as the Times originally misreported. Not remarkably, The Times comes in for some limited praise from Luskin (clutching at straws), but only for allowing a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

  4. Here is Reiss’s correction to bad reporting.

  5. Thank you, Tundra Boy. I may do an article on that. Mulling it over …