Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent - The Guardian
Tuesday March 21, 2006
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools. Giving his first, wide-ranging, interview at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.
"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," he said. The debate over creationism or its slightly more sophisticated offshoot, so-called "intelligent design" (ID) which argues that creation is so complex that an intelligent - religious - force must have directed it, has provoked divisions in Britain but nothing like the vehemence or politicisation of the debate in the US. There, under pressure from the religious right, some states are considering giving ID equal prominence to Darwinism, the generally scientifically accepted account of the evolution of species. Most scientists believe that ID is little more than an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching. States from Ohio to California are considering placing ID it on the curriculum, with President George Bush telling reporters last August that "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." The archbishop's remarks place him firmly on the side of science.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
7 comments:
I was just reading this article and thinking that I should post on it, then I thought 'I bet CK has beaten me to it, and you know what, I was right!'
Thank God someone high up in the church realises the folly of creationism.
[chuckle]
You've beaten me to the punch on a few things too [grin]
But I saw this on the front page & thought to myself "I know what I'm Blogging on tonight".
Always good to see Rowan Williams talk sense. I wonder if anyone will listen?
Religion needs to do this to keep their flock.
BTW, check this blog out. I think you'll like it.
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/
Heard a report on Radio 4 last night where other relegious groups were condemming the Archbishop for his lack of faith...
I (while firmly on the side of science as an individual) can see the possibility (and even philosophical value) in remarking in Relegious Education lessons on the 'divine spark' middle ground.
As children and adults we should be given knowledge and allowed to decide for ourselves. But those options must be presented based on their merits and not just the dominate ideology.
For example, no-one teaches anymore that Muspell (the Norse world of fire) is where we all started from or rivers came from a giant cow's teat, our understanding has moved on
But, there are valuable themes - fire as the creator & destroyer of life, maternal imagery as the life giver or Yggdrasil the 'world tree' as a powerful enviromental image etc.
Creationism as an image is powerful but it is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as one.
I think there is a lot to be said for a comparative religious philosophy class to be taught in all schools. Not just covering Christian traditions but as many traditions as they can fit on one course of study.
Rowan Williams said "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it"
Do you think this puts him on the 'side of science'?
Or is he simply saying it supersedes other 'theories'?
Creationism has hi-jacked Biblical creation & politicised it as a weapon to be used against atheists and liberals (at least in the USA). This process has certainly not done the idea of Biblical creation any favours.
He said that "creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories" meaning that he doesn't think that creation is a 'theory' any more than Armageddon is a 'theory'. Creation in Genesis is a myth - and should be treated as such. It is not a theory, was never intended to be a theory and should not be treated as one.
Post a Comment