Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Creationism

Joanna writes: The Archbishop of Canterbury has attacked Creationism calling it a "questionable science pretending to be theology".

Dr Rowan Williams, said "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."

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."

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.

Comments

[Coel]

Any chance of a link to the Archbishop's speech?

"Neo Darwinism is a questionable theology pretending to be science."

If he said that then he does not know what he is talking about. "Neo-Darwinism" refers to the unification of genetics and Darwinian evolution since the 1930s. It is 100% established mainstream science and has been for decades. It long pre-dates Dawkins.

"Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces [...]"

Which is of course true ...

"[...] which will eventually weed out religion."

Nope, neo-Darwinism does not say that.

"Dr Williams called [neo-Darwinism] "a pseudo science" and "deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge because it is trying to be a theology.""

If Dr Williams thinks that then he is a pseudo intellectual. And trying to be theology is the last thing any science aims for!

[Joanna Sugden]

Hi Coel
the speech isn't available as a transcript yet I'm afraid, so have to rely on my shorthand. Other reports corroborate that is what he said.
I'll put a link in when Lambeth make it available.

[Alistair]

Is this another speech from Rowan Williams that will confuse and confound in equal measure?

While it is commendable that he has issued such an apparently forthright dismissal of the non-science that is mytholigical and fanciful creationist dogma, he can't really prove that he is the great 21st century intellect his supporters claim he is by doing anything else, can he?

Miscellaneous points:

Point 1. 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.

Point 2. He says "Creationism is a version of slightly questionable science" - did he really say "slightly questionable", or is he just trying not to upset its advocates too much by using it euphamistically for not science at all, in any way, shape or form?

Point 3. Are chidren taught in his CofE schools that Christianity is just a colletion of stories, or are they taught Christianity as a body of inviolate fact, and encouraged to believe its stories as so?

Point 4. "Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims." Yes, but such claims are constantly being revised in the light of observable evidence and experiment, gaining ground or being dismissed as a result. The pseudo-scientific "creationism-in-a-lab-coat" ID lobby has found that out to its cost. But what about the "exaggerated claims" made by organised religion?

Point 5. ID is pseudo-science. To say Dawkins and co are peddling pseudo-science will have people creasing up in their lab coats!

With every speech he makes, Dr Williams comes across as ever more confused and prevaricating about what precisely it is that he believes in, and what he doesn't.

[Billy McGinty]

Neither Dawkins nor Rowan Williams are perfect, but 'shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant and ranting' - I think we know who these words refer to.

[Ginger Yellow]

"Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion."

Uh, no they don't.

a) The neo-Darwinian synthesis has nothing to say about culture as such. What the Archbishop and Joanna Sugden are thinking of is memetics, which is an extremely controversial theory and not accepted by the majority of evolutionary biologists (or psychologists, for that matter).

b) Even proponents of memetics, like Dawkins, don't think it implies religion will be "weeded out". On the contrary, Dawkins uses memetics to explain why religion is such a powerful element of culture. The point is that the cultural success of an idea is not directly dependent on its utility (or beauty, or whatever), so much as it ability to replicate itself. It's an analogy from the "selfish gene" concept. An example would be "suicide is honourable", which is obviously harmful to its believers, but has spread in certain cultures that value honour.

Applied to religion, here is what Dawkins wrote:

"Has the god meme, say, become associated with any other particular memes, and does this association assist the survival of each of the participating memes ? Perhaps we could regard an organized church, with its architecture, rituals, laws, music, art, and written tradition, as a co-adapted set of mutually-assisting memes.

To take a particular example, an aspect of doctrine that has been very effective in enforcing religious observance is the threat of hell fire. Many children and even some adults believe that they will suffer ghastly torments after death if they do not obey the priestly rules. This is a peculiarly nasty technique of persuasion, causing great psychological anguish throughout the middle ages and even today. But it is highly effective. It might almost have been planned deliberately by a macchiavellian priesthood trained in deep psychological indoctrination techniques. However, I doubt if the priests were that clever. Much more probably, unconscious memes have ensured their own survival by virtue of those same qualities of pseudo-ruthlessness that successful genes display. The idea of hell fire is, quite simply, self perpetuating, because of its own deep psychological impact. It has become linked with the god meme because the two reinforce each other, and assist each other's survival in the meme pool.

Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence. Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation. The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry. "

[Alistair]

"shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant and ranting' - I think we know who these words refer to. "

Yes, Billy - Bishop Devine of Motherwell and his gay conspiracy outburst last week, but that's really not relevant to this thread.

[Coel]

To interpret the AB's comments we need to guess what he means by "neo-Darwinism". The usual meaning is the unification of genetics with Darwinian evolution (achieved in the 1930s), which is mainstream, totally secure science.

Or does he mean by "neo-Darwinism" the application of Darwinian evolution to human psychology? This is usually called sociobiolgy or evolutionary psychology. Again, this is established, mainstream science.

I'm guessing that the AB means to refer to meme theory and ideas about religion based on memes. But to call this "neo-Darwinism" is ludicrous! Just because it is proposed by Dawkins doesn't make it "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism", which refer to natural selection of genes, not memes.

As usual, the AB has given a confusing speech based, presumably, on his own confusions.

If he is intending to address meme theory, he should realise, firstly, that it is a very minor part of the scientific understanding of evolution, humans and human minds. And secondly, the claims made for memetics by such as Dawkins are actually quite modest, careful and considered.

Neither Darwinism nor memetics suggests that "evolution will weed out religion", indeed they are more likely to discuss the adaptational value of religion, to explain its prevalence in human society.

Anyone wanting to critique memetics should avoid strawmanning by giving an actual quote of someone holding the view they wish to attack.

The AB has failed to do this, and has produced an utterly confusing and silly speech based on his own confusion and lack of knowledge and understanding of what he is talking about.

[John]

More desperate rantings. He sees his pension vanishing quicker than an atheist during the inquisition.

With all the recent talk of seperating church and state again in the UK, he's paired a testable theory with the first chapter of "that book" that his kind seem so interested in quoting from.

It's also a fallacy that Darwinism offers any opinion at all on the begginning of the world, that is the domain of Christianity.

He's confusing Darwinism and Abiogenesis. Darwinism beuatifully and accurately explains, how, from the humblest of humble beginnings, we arrive at the complicated, yet fault ridden animals that we are today and not sinful sinners from sin valley, just notrh of sinnersville.

So these theories are wrong, but what's left is some wishy-washy non-committal, inofensive drivel, that offers nothing other than a cup of tea and a chat.

I thought Jesus (if ever a real person) was alleged to have stated he was coming to fulfil the prophecies?

How far back in this book is it ok to travel before it's not considered by his Archbishopness before he sees what the non-believers see? That it's all nonsense.

[Jason Mead]

"'shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant and ranting' - I think we know who these words refer to."

Posted by: Billy McGinty | 18 Mar 2008 17:56:05"

Rowan certainly fits that cap (or whatever weird head gear he's wearing) all right and here he goes again plunging into the moral maze and getting himself hopelessly lost.

Like philosopher John Gray, he seems to have confused stories that are supported by evidence with those that aren't.

As a Theologian, I am sure that he is more than aware of baseless "exaggerated claims" unsupported by any material evidence whatsoever. However, One genuinely has to wonder if he thinks he knows what he means by what he calls "Neo-Darwinism" which (as far as that term is understood by most scientists)at least has an abundance of evidence to support it.

That's why it is the polar opposite of Theology and has no aspirations to take it's place (whatever that pseudo-subject is pretending to be.)

He really is a deeply muddled man.

[JohnnyT]

I have to ask: Why is the Archbishop of Canterbury attacking on of the primary, if not THE most revered tenet of Christianity? That God created the Heavens and the Earth?

Now I'm no Christian, but this seems to me as fundamental a repudiation of a Christian tenet as if the Catholic Church were to repudiate the virgin birth of Christ. I mean, let's face it. Isn't that why they call it FAITH?

The more I hear from this so-called "Man of God" (such as the inevitablilty of Sharia Law in England) the more I question his fitness to lead ANY church.

[Norman]

I don't know who 'shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant and ranting' is quoting, but I assume you are referring to Heather Mills. If not, don't be coy, speak up.

[Karl]

While secular thinking is clearly not theological, I'm glad he admits that theologies are "deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge"

[alan]

Surely he's has got his argument back to front.
Creationism is certainly not a science pretending to be theology, but the other way round:
It's theology pretending to be science.
And that's what creationism is: A mere pretence.

[Chris]

This sounds like a rather weak attempt by C to say "keep out of my territory". Science is daring to stray into realms previously claimed by theology - and it is likely to advance human knowledge and understanding in a way that theology could never achieve.

[Paul Millington]

How can he claim that Creationism is "questionable science"? In what way is it any type of science? The Archbishop really seems to be losing the plot.

[GordonHide]

One would have hoped that the Archbishop, having shown himself not to be intellectually equipped for the debate, would at least have had the brains to keep a low profile.

[Keith Budden]

The evidence that Genesis is a construct from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish is overwhelming, with thousands of points of comparison,however these Sumerian tales were about other Gods so Genesis contains no actual information about the creation. Intelligent Design is another dogmatic doctrine which, since much of nature is imperfect,seems to be about a mad scientist creator, certainly the God of the Old Testament looks to be a very flawed and unkind figure.Why is there an assumption that a creator would be benign? In any case for those that have a belief in a Supreme Being,I don't know why they are making it so complicated. Why not accept that the Bible is not the literal truth and just claim that everything was created by God including the ability of His creation to evolve. The Modern Bible is provably greatly changed from the original and the Catholic Church admits responsibility for this. E.G. One example of hundreds is that the final chapter of John is a sixth century forgery "The sole conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added." Catholic Encyclopaedia,Farley Ed.,vol.viii,pp 441-442

[Phil]

As I am not a scientist, I will not claim to be, but I still see a lot of evidence on both sides of the debate. There is a lot of evidence that things that happen on earth (like layers in soil, erosion, even fossils) can happen a lot quicker than evolutionists believe.

I also think that the complexity of the solar system, the complexity of the human mind and body as well as the complexity and beauty of nature and ecosystems seem a bit to brilliant to just have happened by accident.

Its harsh to say that the 'stories' in the bible are just 'stories' with no evidence. Actually, historically, the bible is quite factual and with the amount of eye-witness accounts it would stand up in a court very easily, hence why its still around no matter how many athiests dispute it.

I do believe God created the earth, whether he did it in 6 days or 60 billion years I'm still not certain and different interpretations of Genesis say different things. To teach evolution as fact when there is still a heck of a lot of evidence that goes against it is wrong. As both sides are still being argued, both sides still need to be taught. Evolutionists can be just as close minded, if not more so, than hard-core creationists.

[Col]

Phil there is no evidence that goes against evolution. The only evidence you appear to present is your own personal incredulity.

[Coel]

Phil writes: "There is a lot of evidence that things that happen on earth (like layers in soil, erosion, even fossils) can happen a lot quicker than evolutionists believe."

Of course you provide no evidence for this empty assertion. How typical of creationists. There is no such evidence.

"I also think that the complexity of the solar system, the complexity of the human mind and body as well as the complexity and beauty of nature and ecosystems seem a bit to brilliant to just have happened by accident."

Of course you do realise that Darwinian evolution is a process that creates lots of complexity; beautiful, interlocking of exactly the type that we see in nature?

"Actually, historically, the bible is quite factual and with the amount of eye-witness accounts it would stand up in a court very easily"

No there are not. For example there are no eye-witness accounts whatsoever of Jesus in the Bible. Didn't you know that? It was all written 40 years (or so) later by people who had never met Jesus.

"To teach evolution as fact when there is still a heck of a lot of evidence that goes against it is wrong."

Evolution is a fact; there is no scientific evidence against it; empty claims by creationists who know nothing about science or evidence do not change that.

"Evolutionists can be just as close minded"

Ah yes, since you have no evidence whatsoever against evolution you resort to calling scientists "closed minded".

[Norman]

"As I am not a scientist" by Phil - your post sounds as if you'd be an ideal Archbishop of Canterbury. It's a fine collection of ignorance and muddle. You're not Rowan posting under a pseudonym by any chance?

[john e macgregor]

Is Rowan Williams educated? He is the best argument for thoes who wish to close faith schools. The only religon that was in any way sensible was the Cargo Cult of Papua New Guinea.

[Veronica]

These emotive comments actually support what I think RW was trying to say. And if I am interpreting the comments correctly, then I agree with him.

The people who seem to engage in this debate most fervently and frequently are lacking in either faith/theology or scientific understanding. As a result, there is a massive debate and there can not possibly be a sensible outcome or connect because the two 'sides' are arguing completely different things.

I am both a scientist and a Christian believer and I see no problem with reconciling my understanding of science and evolution with my faith. And I am certainly not the only one - several accomplished people such as Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project) have spoken and written at length about this. Why do they not get the publicity that those who are divisive get?!

Whether or not the terminology or specifics apply (as some commenters argue) I think this is what RW sees and would like to get accross - a true message both to secular society and to the Church that avoids the bickering that has plagued the issue.

[Mrs Margaret Elward]

What on earth is he taking about!
He is in a position where he should be preaching the good news, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, which is what Easter is all about.
Why does this man have to be confusing everyone with his so called intellectual thinking. Its much easier to read believe Genesis Chapter one, than it is to read Dr Rowel Williams' ramblings

[Oliver NIcholson]

The study of theology may have vices, but one of its virtues is the close study of texts. I have yet to find the text of the Archbishop's discourse on his web-site and though I am sure Joanna Sugden's shorthand is excellent it would have to be miraculous to do justice to the subtlety of a speaker who seems quite determined to make people reflect rather than react to sound-bites.

[Kenneth]

How long is this tiresome debate going to remain polarised? Could it be that both scientists and theologians could actually learn from one another instead of throw insults? Lets face it, the athiest/God debate will never be proved by scientist or theologian. Both have their share of quacks and both have a long and honourable history. A dose of humility (a key attitude in both disciplines) would go a long way towards mutual understanding!

[RJW]

Phil,

As a matter of interest could you state your age, educational level and achievements, employment history and present employment?

[Phil]

I think you'll find, Coel that one bit evidence for my statement about layers of the earth comes from a study done on Mt St Helens after it exploded. There were several examples of layers being formed in a couple weeks that evolutionist scientists thought could only be formed in millions of years. This happened with a mix of hot lava, rock, ash, dirt and the millions of tree trunks blown over by the blast.

I'll state again, there is still a lot of evidence against evolution and a lot of evolution that just doesn't make sense (why aren't monkeys still changing into humans?) and I'm still looking on both sides of the argument.

Col, you sure argued your point well there. I better go change my scientific understanding straight away.

RJW, I'm older and more accomplished than you need to know.

[Ian]

rowan williams say that :
"Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories". The Archbishop also said,
"Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn't".

NO, NO, NO, 'christianity' does not say that at all, williams and the other athiests say those things.
Rowan Williams is the proverbial dog in a manger, that sits where it should not, yet barks at the bull that rightfully comes to feed.

[Coel]

Phil writes: "one bit evidence for my statement about layers of the earth comes from a study done on Mt St Helens after it exploded. There were several examples of layers being formed in a couple weeks that evolutionist scientists thought could only be formed in millions of years."

Please back that claim with a cite or evidence; in particular please give a cite to scientists saying that those sorts of layers could only be formed in millions of years.

"I'll state again, there is still a lot of evidence against evolution [...]"

Stating it don't make it so! Anyone who attempts to present such "evidence" quickly loses the argument when they start talking to scientists. It's happened over and over again.

"and a lot of evolution that just doesn't make sense (why aren't monkeys still changing into humans?)"

To even ask that question shows that you don't even understand evolution. Monkeys are of course still changing. As to what they're changing into, why do you think it would be into humans? You see, that particular ecological niche is now occupied, isn't it?

"I better go change my scientific understanding straight away."

Yes, you should.

[Nigel MacNicol]

Is there any evidence that Rowan Williams said those words? I'd need more than someone's shorthand notes. But I'm sure God created Dawkins along with the sciences of Genetics and evolution which resulted in Dawkins and Darwin.
Nigel

[sdm]

Give the Arch Wizard of Cant a break.. He has philosophise to justify his regal position and that of his glorified druids. How else are they to live in luxury on the charitable donations of their gullible but faithful followers (also not forgetting all the lovely tax breaks).

Unfortunately no-one told him and his frocked minions that one does not have to subscribe to or be controlled by a religion to be a warm loving humane being. ITS FREE AND UNCONDITIONAL!

[Priscus]

I used to think my religion (Christianity) was interesting. Now the Archbishop and his supporters/critics have reduced it to a boring muddle.
Two or three times recently, I started to write trenchant postings, attacking Rowan Williams for his views on (e.g.) the Incarnation, Sharia Law, Darwinism . . . . .. Now I see he's not worth the trouble; he appears to be a weak, muddle-headed intellectual that is quite unfitted to be any kind of Christian leader.
If we are in fact in danger from the attacks of Islamists, we need a strong preacher and apologist to rally us all for the coming danger; this man will betray the faith of Christ without realising what he is doing.

[bill]

"why aren't monkeys still changing into humans?". Honestly, Phil, if that encompasses you understanding of Evolution, the there is little point arguing with you. Why not go and read a few books on the subject and get back to us all?
You consider yourself accomplished, and that makes a total of one person who thinks that (plus maybe your mum who may not know better).

[Rick Beekman]

Keith Budden;

RE; Your comments regarding The Bible.

Just about everyday another scoffer or pinhead know-it-all tries to refute what the Bible says. The first one who did this in the Bible was no other then Satan himself.

He is the originator of "Doubt casting" the Word of God.

God told Adam and Eve Not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Satan comes along in Genesis 3 v 1; "....Yea hath God said
ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden"?

So as the Bible states; "There is nothing new under the Sun."

God's Spirit directed many chosen individuals to carefully record his Word. God is not someone who makes errors or mistakes so that what is in the Bible is open to debate..argument..or vain worldly philosophy.

Psalm 119 v 89; "Forever O Lord thy Word is settled in Heaven". And many other verses.
One final thing; I would never believe anything the Vatican tells people. Anything they say is subject to suspiction.
That is why the Beloved Catholic faithful are never taught to read God's word. If They Did they would discover the False Doctrines they are being taught.
Do You Trust Politicians?
The Vatican is a full-fledged member of the UN. Do you know of any other Christian Church who belongs to The U.N.??
I rest my case...

[MALC]

This is why RD refuses to argue with faith heads - you just can't get anywhere with them, because they just "know" and spout scripture at you.

[Richard Matthews]

So, we have the religious experts over here saying "just believe me", and the scientists over the other side saying " here is the evidence from science". Great!So you have a tiny percentage of the world arguing over potentially the biggest question for our species.
Scientists - you seem to have the facts on your side - how are you going to make it understandable enough for the bulk of normal people to be able to rely upon it? After all, it's a lot easier to believe in something many others do, than something a few do, and you don't understand!

[MALC]

"Scientists - you seem to have the facts on your side - how are you going to make it understandable enough for the bulk of normal people to be able to rely upon it?"

Do you need to know exactly how a car works to be able to use it? There are certain prerequisites that are needed - like advanced mathematics before you can begin to understand the concepts involved.

Yes it's easy to understand that there's an invisible hand pushing your car along, but that doesn't make it true.

[Richard Matthews]

Missing the point perhaps Malc?
What I mean is that you can engage in this wonderful debate with the believers as much as you like, but if you can't convince the person in the street of your argument, because they can't understand it, then where does it leave you?
I'm not talking about the truth in your argument, I'm talking about how you market it.
Oh, and by the way, I can see that if I turn the key in the ignition, it works. Unfortunately I am a little young to observe the effects of evolution :-)

[andrew]

Matthew,
I think you are quite right: it's so much easier to lean back in front of TV and watch a good soccer game than to switch on one's brains or even go and read a book!