Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Creationism and Darwinism

Transcript of today's show:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, criticized both extremes, saying: "Neo Darwinism and Creationist science deserve each other. Creationism is a version of slightly questionable science pretending to be theology, and Neo Darwinism is a questionable theology pretending to be science." Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories, the Archbishop continued, Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn't.

[source: Times Online]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the blog Faith Central of Times Online:
The Archbishop hit out against the "two extremes" in the range of theories of how the world began in his Holy Week lecture on Faith and Science last night. He said "Science has more to do than is simply covered by these theories."

Creationists believe in the literal version of creation as told in Genesis, and argue that man walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion.

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."

[read full blog post]

from a comment posted on the blog Faith Central:
Surely there is a difference between 'stories' with no supporting evidence, and 'stories' with an abundance and growing body of observed and observable evidence to support them? This is an important distinction he fails to make when comparing the competing stories of Christianity and Neo-Darwinism.

from PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula:

Rowan Williams clearly has no idea what the neo-Darwinian synthesis says, because nowhere does it claim that evolution will weed out religion; even I, brutal opponent of all things godly, can see reasonable arguments for the adaptiveness of religion, or the absence of selection against religion, or that there are acceptable rationales for religion as an exaptation. But otherwise, the admission that science is a problem for theology, and the ignorant claim that evolution is a pseudo-science, are useful tools for the atheist conspiracy. [read full blog post]