And then he told them a series of tales on how they may suck it.

But the Creationists will again show that they are impervious to reasonable criticisms made by authoritative figures of Christianity.

He makes a good point which few creationists seem to realize: The search for scientific truth in the Bible can only lead to the dilution of the power of the Bible and faith.

If God is reduced to a natural phenomenon, he ceases to be a God.

Wow, my first greenlight. Also my least funny, most cookie-cutter headline.

Now I know the path to success on fark! Bwaa-haaa-haaa!

whatshisname: If God is reduced to a natural phenomenon, he ceases to be a God.

Exactly, teaching religion as a science only achieves two things:
1) A corruption of scientific knowledge.
2) A loss of faith in the miraculous nature of God.

whatshisname: He makes a good point which few creationists seem to realize: The search for scientific truth in the Bible can only lead to the dilution of the power of the Bible and faith.

I actually agreed with him. They will just be a theory up for challenge like any other scientific theory. You can't both preserve the Bible as an unquestionable truth and present it as scientific fact.

Well, the Catholic Church supports evolution... so what if the Church of England does?

They're pretty much Catholic Church - Pope + Divorce.

Or so I learned in Catholic school.

LineNoise: I would also like to thank the Archbishop for his delicious fake egg yolk filled chocolate eggs. They really should sell them outside of the easter season.

That would be Cadbury.

Mugato: If God exists then he's part of the natural universe, right?

I think that by definition, God is outside of the universe. Otherwise, he's not God, he's just some natural force that we haven't yet discovered.

Mugato: /and if we can explain Him scientifically, we can kill him


Not if we find out that he's Omnipotent and Omnipresent...as in he's Everything....we can't destroy reality...

Finally. Someone showing reason. Though now he'll be labeled as a heretic by the self-righteous-soccer-moms of america.

/salute

Acaciaavenue to Creationists: Suck It

sounds to me like he's (justifiably) interested in keeping the preaching of christianity within the purview of the church. no sense in letting state employees horn in on the church's territory.

Not at all unreasonable.

He's exactly right, ID/Creation should never, ever be presented as science in a classroom. Period. Evolution should. This is really not a hard discussion, but there's no shortage of blowhards on either side. You can all go suck it.

/ID proponent
//Believes nothing worthwhile is happenstance

st_gulik Not if we find out that he's Omnipotent and Omnipresent...as in he's Everything....we can't destroy reality...

Really? Sounds like a challenge to me...

Its Groundhog day

"..trying to set scientific thought back 400 years....fark that. If the superstitious motherfarkers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes."

-MC Hawking

How long are the greenlighters going to go with this Suck It BS? It's really, really lame.

What would you expect from the Archbishop of Canterbury....support of the Bible?????of course not...

This is what I was trying to tell my fundie brother-in-law the other day: U.K. Christians are usually significantly more laid-back about their religion than the fundie zealots I deal with in Colorado Springs on a daily basis. He was under the impression that the entire world went to mega-churches.

brap

Oh, that was funny. New screen, please!

I'll have some mead with a whisky Chaucer...

/got even less than that

Mugato and if we can explain Him scientifically, we can kill control him

fixed that for you.
Please refer to the atom, DNA, and fire

mrsirjojo: How long are the greenlighters going to go with this Suck It BS? It's really, really lame.

Pfffttt... Suck it, biatch!

We could end all this debate if the closed-minded scientists would just go watch a lightning storm.

The intellectual poverty of creationists is astonishing. They rely on an entity that is by definition unknowable to men to support their claims. And their claim amounts to . . . what? I've never been able to figure it out exactly.

The core of the theory of evolution is that the nature favors some genetic traits over others, resulting in a change the overall genetic composition of the species over time. How can anyone be against this proposition? What's their alternative? This completely blows away my mind.

elchip, you really do not have to explain jokes other people make.
No really you don't.

mrsirjojo to admins: suck it.

elchipThat would be Cadbury.

I met her once. The Lady Cadbury that is... Nice lady. We had lunch at her country estate and played tennis.

She had the biggest bathroom I'd ever seen.

Mr. The Pope is so going to fire his ass...

LineNoise: I would also like to thank the Archbishop for his delicious fake egg yolk filled chocolate eggs. They really should sell them outside of the easter season.

They do. Umm, here in the UK at least. Maybe we're just lucky.

/How do you eat yours?

Hurrah for Rowan! I like our archbishop. I say our as an Englishman rather than a christian.

Also, for those that say "C of E is just catholics with no pope", you know nothing. The C of E is the nominal head of the anglican church throughout the world (in reality this amounts to a sort of chairman type position that facilitates discussion and accord amongst world church leaders). The C of E is also protestant.

Sure, the origins are dubious (Henry VIII etc.) but the execution is good. The C of E seem to speak mostly tolerant, rational sense these days. Of course that ties up nicely with plummeting church attendance and an increasingly secular society I guess.

Cake or Death?

Lets just get this out of the way right now.

The problem of Creationism can be solved simply and easily:

1. Teach Creationism in science class.
2. Teach science in religious studies.

Ta-daa!

Young, easily manipulated kids are then exposed to logic, reasoning and all sorts of good stuff. This will utterly undermine Creationism and expose a whole generation of would-be theists to rational thought!

Victory!

bensmash Mr. The Pope is so going to fire his ass...


Umm, dude, Mr. The Pope isn't his boss. Also, Mr. The Pope agrees with him.

Williams is a great thinker. Does not fit easily into any camp. Unfortunately its his take on homosexuality that clogs the ears of those who should hear.

I thought TIME had already delared god dead.
Also, is the church of England & the King James Bible a part of Christianity? Protestants? (do Protestants believe in teh jeebus?)

cue the Flying Spaghetti Monster in 3, 2, 1...

/da baron

sfl

DEo enlighten me on his stance on homosexuality, I haven't heard that one. Is he of the "it's a sin/abomination" camp? That would be a shame 'cos he's usually a pretty reasonable fellow.

Savian: "..trying to set scientific thought back 400 years....fark that. If the superstitious motherfarkers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes."

-MC Hawking

well played.

whatshisname: I think that by definition, God is outside of the universe. Otherwise, he's not God, he's just some natural force that we haven't yet discovered.

By the very definition of the texts God is everywhere.

The whole three headed god thing was a rather freaky deaky interpretation some time early on in the Church's life. (the church being early christians in general.. before the catholic church and well after the crucifiction.)

/Spent far too much money in school on theology classes

WayneKerr

We could end all this debate if the closed-minded scientists would just go watch a lightning storm.

Just in case you aren't joking, Ben Franklin already did that, and showed the Creationists to be wrong.

No, Protestants do not believe in Jesus. Only the Eastern Orthodox CHurch beleives in Jesus. Everyone else goes to hell or something.

/So I heard.

Canterbury, you say?

No, he has a pretty liberal take on it, Gothnet.

And yet, he defies Bishop Spong in almost every other category. Williams is very Nicene in his thinking, which is normally at odds with a more progressive take on moral theology.