We Aren’t Monkeying Around, Darwin; The Apology Is Sincere

Rowan WilliamsThe Church of England has made an official apology to Charles Darwin for “misunderstanding his theory of evolution”, 126 years after the latter’s passing.

Elaborating, officials said that senior bishops of the Church wanted to “atone for the vilification” heaped on Darwin by their predecessors when he first proposed in his theory that man descended from apes.

You see, those fundamentalists (or what I’d call Bible-believing Christians), according to the Church of England led by Rowan Williams, are just a bunch of ignorant country bumpkins, believing in a six-day Creation story. The Church of England is modern, and love science — that’s why we think that our teachings shouldn’t be incompatible with science.

The Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown, director of mission and public affairs of the Archbishops’ Council, the governing body in the Church of England, writes:

People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.The Church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy and has since realised its error. Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

So it is important to think again about Darwin’s impact on religious thinking, then and now.

Dr. Brown further argues that “…there is nothing incompatible between the scientific theories adopted by Darwin and Christian teaching.”

Duh, of course not, evolution and Creation are perfectly compatible, because the God we believe in isn’t necessarily the one mentioned in the Bible. Ours is a product of our own imagination, oh, very much like the golden calf in Exodus, i.e. an idol.

It also does not matter that we pick and choose what to believe in the Bible, fully teaching what we like and placing caveats on what we don’t. So, in this case, while we think that God did indeed make the basic forms of life, evolution was necessary to turn apes into men. We weren’t made in the image of God, apes and monkeys were.

Source: MailOnline.

9 thoughts on “We Aren’t Monkeying Around, Darwin; The Apology Is Sincere

  1. This is a sad story. Your commentary is excellent. I found this site because I have been doing some research regarding evolution vs. creation. Last week I found out that the “lead elder” (pastor) at my church (which I believed to be solidly founded on the Word of God) is a democrat who voted for Obama (which, in my mind, means my pastor supports abortion, homosexuality, government control over what we do and think, etc.). Then today, I found out that this same man that 100s of people are looking to for spiritual guidance, believes in theistic evolution, not a literal 7-day creation sequence as the Bible teaches. Very sad. And scary. I never thought I would see this day in the church I attend. I am shocked. Disturbed. Left wondering what to do next. I’m not sure this article about the stupidity of the Church of England was the encouragement I needed. However, your comments were uplifting. Thanks.


  2. The earth looks old and it looks like life on it has evolved over billions of years. The following possibilities exist:

    1. The earth is actually billions of years old ald life evolved gradually.

    2. God created a planet-sized lie – a planet that looks old while it isn’t.

    For one, I prefer Darwin to be right. At least it doesn’t make God a liar…


  3. To Jag (and ilk),

    How convenient that you can manage to write off Genesis 1-11. You continue to mention “scholars” believe, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

    The Bible is clear in Romans 1:22, “Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.” Oh wait a minute, I forgot that this is another one of those books that is really not written by the apostle Paul, and what the Bible actually says is not what it actually means, because what it actually means is not what it actually says. For if it actually meant what it actually said, then……oh, never mind, good scholars CAN’T go down that road can they?!?!

    As has already stated, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

    So, once again, let’s see if we understand your comment, Jag.

    According to you, the earth looks old with life that has evolved over billions of years. Yet, even secular textbooks did not attribute “billions” of years of evolution until the last 50-60 years. Again, the problem is that ABSOLUTELY NO missing links have ever been found and ABSOLUTELY NO irrefutable proof of evolution has ever been produced. Scientists have to continue to adjust the curves because they understand the stupidity of trying to prove that two atoms out of nothing collided one day, earth appeared, an “it” grew legs and climbed out of the primordial soup, became a frog, then a mammal, eventually a primate, and voila – one day the primate stood on his two hind legs, decided to stop swinging from his tail, then decided to evolve without a tail, started a university, granted himself a PH.D., rewrote the Bible, and became a fool as God sits in the heavens and laughs at them in derision (Psalm 2).

    Oh, then Darwin comes along, twists the truth, writes what he wants with no scholarly critique, and because Christian pastors were caught off guard, they decided it was better to try and bring the two aspects together and effectively decided what parts of the Bible were worth believing and which were fallacy, or which parts were only “church” tradition. Not even Darwin believed the earth was “billions” of years old, but of course, we forget that in man’s continuing evolution, he gets smarter! I assume that the poor saps who have to be indoctrinated in public schools and universities in the days when I have grandchildren will be taught that the earth ACTUALLY has to be a trillion years old in order for the order and perfect chemistry found in the natural world to evolve!

    Wow, I’m impressed with such scholarship!


  4. The earth looks old and it looks like life on it has evolved over billions of years. The following possibilities exist:

    1. The earth is actually billions of years old ald life evolved gradually.

    2. God created a planet-sized lie – a planet that looks old while it isn’t.

    For one, I prefer Darwin to be right. At least it doesn’t make God a liar…


    This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy (a.k.a. the either-or fallacy; a.k.a. the false dilemma). One doesn’t see this straw-man being set up by thoughtful atheists or careful so-called “Christian evolutionists” so it appears to me that we’ve acquired a rather shallow thinker in our guest Jag. What does billions of years “look” like? Human beings can’t “see” time. Technically speaking time is calculated. How is time calculated? In other words; time is calculated on earth by what means? By calculating the Earth’s rotations, and its orbital ellipses around our local star known as the Sun, and breaking the calculation down into discrete units we measure and call “time”.

    Neither Darwin, nor anyone else can “make God a liar” since being perfect He by definition cannot lie. And because He cannot lie there’s no fear of being misled by God’s infallible eyewitness testimony to His own creation fiat as it has been inscripturated in His perfect self-revelation in the book of Genesis. Adam being one millisecond old (after he was created) would have had an “appearance” if age (human maturity), as would Eve. This was not a “lie” or a “trick”, it’s merely how God chose to create, and it was very good. Furthermore when Christ miraculously multiplied the loaves of bread, and created wine from water no one in their right mind would have accused him of perpetrating a falsehood by making fully baked, ready-to-eat bread, and fully developed fish from the scraps of food that were originally available; nor would a reasonable person have accused him of “lying” for miraculously turning water into fermented beverage for the wedding guests in Cana, thereby defying the natural laws of physics and chemistry (which He also created).

    All men everywhere will either humble themselves before Christ as Lord and Savior and submit to His Word, or else they will serve idols and be inflexibly judged according to their own sinful works. These are the only two possibilities, and this fact is not a false dichotomy, but rather is the witness of sacred Scripture. Unbelief is still a soul-damning sin.

    In Christ,


  5. I may be ignorant here and talking out of my hat, but doesn’t life need the cell? And if everything evolved from minute “simple” structures or organisms, then that means the cell was once simple as well? But in order to have life, the cell must contain the DNA of the structure it composes…am I wrong here? How can life be simple if the cell that makes it up is so complex? Just doesn’t make sense…


  6. Dear Pastor,

    Perhaps you are too much of a desert pastor and not enough of a real world pastor! 😉 Where did you find the claim that Paul did NOT write Romans? He did not write some other epistles traditionally associated with his name, but he did write Romans. Isn’t it good news?

    I propose that we take the Bible seriously. And to take it seriously you simply can’t take it literally. It would be absurd. Remember the gospel story where satan takes Jesus to a high mountain and shows him ALL the kingdoms of the world? If you propose we take this story as literal history, then please name the mountain from which you can actually see the whole earth. Remember, satal actually LEAD Jesus to that mountain; it was not a vision. You will find that in addition to that you will have to declare as dogma that the Earth is flat too. Otherwise, if you agree that the earth is spherical you are contradicting the Bible! Or at least a fundamentalist, literalist reading of the Bible. So let me once again – is that story a literal one or not?

    Funny that you should mention “an angry God” almost in every paragraph you write. First of all, the singular article is interesting. If there is an angry God, there must be another one, a loving God too, right? Was that a Freudian slip revealing unconscious polygamy? The God of Jesus is a God of love, not anger.

    You are incorrect in saying that the age of the earth was not estimated to be billions of years until the last 50-60 years. Our ability to calculate it did not appear overnight but was due to refinment of radiomettric dating methods. However, the age of the earth was known to be over a billion years already in the early 20th century. Since then we have found out that it is somewhat older, not younger.

    As to the “missing links” and evidence for evolution, I do not know what else you would need to accept the facts. I suppose even if billions of years could be reproduced in a test tube in a matter of days, you still would not accept what’s plain to see. Arguing with you over this would be like proving that gravity does exist! Most Christians in fact celebrate a yearly Evolution Weekend, which must mean that they are in a disagreement with you. But I suppose you will say that they are all apostates and only you own the truth… The fact that you totally confuse abiogenesis with evolution says a lot of your ignorance of life sciences. Evolution has nothing – absolutely nothing – to say about the beginning of life.

    Darwin’s claims have been tested for over 150 years now. Some of them have been disproved, and many things Darwin had no idea about have been discovered, however the core of Darwin’s theory remains. In fact, the very same theory predicted many things that could not be proven at the time, yet since then we have discovered those things. And new branches of knowledge, like genetics, which did not exist during Darwin’s life prove evolution too.

    Dear Coram Deo,

    I am glad you see my claim as a logical fallacy. If there is any other possibility, why not let us know? Modern physics can estimate age of our planet and our universe. If you propose to ignore science, then where do we stop? Do we also reject heliocentrism and accept flat earth as a dogma because “the Bible clearly teaches it”?

    Of course, God the way you imagine it could have created the earth that looks billions of years old. But Adam created in a millisecond might look like a mature human being from a distance, yet a close examination would reveal a wrinkless skin, brand new teeth and therefore no scientist would claim that Adam was old. What we see in the real world is evidence of millions of years of erosion (the Grand Canyon) and existence of many different forms of life billions of years before first humans emerged. If God had created a world with fossils of old, dead animals in them then that is what I call a planet-sized lie, and I do not believe that God would do that.

    Strange that only your dichotomy is not false and everyone else’s is… tells me a lot about how your mind works.

    Dear revivalandfreformation,

    I like it how you start by asking questions rather than by making claims and then trying to make evidence fit. I hope you will continue to ask questions and look for answers. To help you out, not all cells require DNA. And there is no reason why cells could not evolve too. First cells would necessarily be very simple ones.


  7. How bizarre is this. Here you have an organization, which claims to be a Christian church (and as such, supposed followers of the Son of God), apologizing to a dead man, for not believing in his hypothesis that we are all just a random collection of atoms and molecules, (and thereby accenting the nullification of the existence of a Creator God). And in doing so, in effect apologizing to what they believe to be nothing more than decayed matter long devoid of energy, and their supposed Church being nothing more than a farce based on unscientific nonsense. Can someone explain to me the logic in this, because I’m not getting it.


  8. Logic…? Who said anything about logic? Next thing you know, these idiots (sorry, slip of the tongue), ignorant people will be apologizing to Satan…and here I didn’t think there were any more levels of low one could stoop to.


Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.