Enough of the "evolution and religion" stuff
…and the tune is evolution. A few things that I happened on today that give some updates on what these groups think about Darwin and evolution, now and in the past. Even if you’re one of those people who think religion is evil and moderate religion is the worst of all, it’s worth being aware of what the dominant opinions are and how they are changing in various groups.
First up is geologist/historian/Vicar Michael Roberts giving his (very informed) opinion on creationism and evolution in the Church of England, then and now. He sees very little evidence of antievolutionism among English Anglicans for most of the last 150 years, but suggests that in the last 20 years, perhaps 5% of clergy have become YECs.
Well, here is some "evidence of antievolutionism among English Anglicans" -- the following largely unnoticed statements from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams:
. . . . Dr Williams admitted that Neo Darwinism, a theory supported by Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, is "most problematic" to theology, but he called it "a pseudo science" and "deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge because it is trying to be a theology."
In a sideswipe at evolutionary scientists such as Professor Dawkins, Williams warned "Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims." He added "Neo Darwinism of Dawkins' kind carries with it a rather subjective agenda...It is as vulnerable as Christianity". Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories, the Archbishop continued, Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn't.
The Panda's Thumb article continues,
Next, we have “Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin” from the U.K. Times. Apparently the Vatican is making a substantial effort to stamp out the Discovery-Institute-originated pro-ID spin that has been promoted on various statements from the Pope.
What kind of credibility does the Vatican have, considering that an upcoming Vatican conference won't even look at the scientific, philosophical, and theological aspects of intelligent design?
IMO the “evolution v. religion” issue has grown stale. Some people see evolution as compatible with religion, others see it as incompatible with religion, and others don’t care. It's a personal thing. We should leave it at that. It is high time to consider some new ideas in the evolution controversy, like co-evolution. Co-evolution is discussed on this blog in the post-label group titled “Non-ID criticisms of evolution”.