Church Confesses Darwin Was Right, There Is No God

15 09 2008

Today the Church of England apologized to Charles Darwin for spending the last 150 years denying the theory of Evolution.  Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the author of the apology said:

“We have had our collective heads up our asses for so long that we can barely believe how wrong we have been.  If God did exist he would certainly have put a note about Evolution in the Bible somewhere but he didn’t.  Not even a fucking metaphor we could twist to pretend it was there all along.  Nothing.

Sadly we’ve also had to concede that the only explanation for such an enormous oversight in out Holy Bible is that God doesn’t exist.  Really, if I must be honest, we in the church leadership have known all this for centuries but at least now it’s out in the open.  It’s been a tough week for us to admit all this, but it feels good to not have to lie to everyone any more.  Now I’m hoping we can dispense with the funny hats too, but I’m not holding my breath.”

Okay, maybe I’m paraphrasing a little but I’m sure that’s the gist of what he meant to say.

So I wonder if that means John McCain and Sarah “Home Schooling Creationism and Abstinence Only Sex Education” Palin will reconsider their positions on this given the word coming down from the big church.  Yeah, whatever.




23 responses

15 09 2008

Nice job on the paraphrasing. 😉

15 09 2008

Hah, that was great. Are you trying to keep up with Stanhope? LOL

15 09 2008

I am a Christian and have no problem in accepting evolution (or any other scientific consensus); there is no contradiction between an affirmation of the existence of God and acceptance of science. As Stephen Gould–a fine scientist–recognized, science and religion address totally different questions. As the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has clearly stated, questions of purpose, meaning, and value simply do not fall within the realm of science.

I think that creationism is strengthened when conservative and fundamentalist Christians–who are only one part of the Christian tradition–see it implied or stated that evolution means God doesn’t exist. It also leaves your best arguments on the bench. Darwin was a very smart man and he never said or believed that his theory made belief in God impossible (his wife, with whom he had an excellent relationship, remained a committed Christian); his agnosticism was largely due to the problem of undeserved suffering–a much better approach, I would think, for non-believers to take.

I hope we can put aside the God question at least insofar as necessary to combine to oppose, for instance, teaching of creationism in science classes and leaving both theology and atheology out of the science classroom where it most certainly does not belong.

16 09 2008

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that many evolutionists believe evolution negates the existence of God (life force), and equally, that many of those who believe in God believe that faith negates evolution. (By the way, just as a side note, many aspects of the evolution theory are unproven.)

The Bible does not get into detail but it says that God, “made, formed, and created” mankind. A little research shows that those terms specifically represent body, soul and spirit (not in same order).

It also says that God created the earth and all the life in it within seven days. Logically, that is not to be taken literally and the Bible is clearly a very figurative book in many instances, as God is very aware of our limited understanding. The Bible was never intended to be a science book but a spiritual guide.

What difference does it matter if it took a day, a thousand years, or a million years for God to develop the human beings that would be the crowning of His creation. God doesn’t need to explain everything to us in detail and He seldom does.

How could anyone at ANY point in time truly comprehend the depth of creation and the existence of mankind? Even with all we know today our knowledge is barely a drop in the bucket.

I’m truly amazed at how much we “think” we know!

16 09 2008

Kristine, generally speaking the people for whom “God” is threatened by evolution are thinking in terms of a personal monotheistic god and not the warm-fuzzy pantheistic god of nature. You, apparently, may be an exception to that rule.

As for the “many aspects of the evolution theory (that) are unproven” you should perhaps be more specific to what you’re referring to. Furthermore, you should acknowledge that none of the aspects of Creationism or Intelligent Design have ever been proven, nor has any evidence been presented to support such an assertion.

Logically there is very little that should be taken literally from the Bible, which is why it seems such a monumentally poor document to attribute divine omnipotent authorship. Perhaps your God seldom explains anything because he (apparently) doesn’t know any more than a desert shepherd from 2000 years ago. Have you ever wondered why that piece of truth might be?

16 09 2008


In my last comment I stated that I find it hard to believe people believe creation and evolution “negate” one another. In the same way you use terms like “monotheistic” and “pantheistic” to put God in a box of one sort or another to “negate” each other.

I believe God is both monotheistic (one God, or life force) and has many pantheistic qualities. I do not believe, however, that God “is” the universe or nature, but that these are manifestations of His power and that He transcends all of physical creation and can exist without it.

As for what can be proven or unproven about evolution is not really the point, as I said it was a side note and has no bearing on the existence of God one way or another except that people seem to think it does because they take the creation account literally in terms of timeline, etc. And I agree, no one has “proven” the existence of God in such a way that it will be universally accepted in the five senses realm, i.e. “see the ball is round, it is red and not blue.”

Truth be told one cannot prove God DOES NOT exist anymore than one can prove God DOES exist. It is a futile cause and it boils down to a question of the heart. The Bible does state this: “The things of God are clearly evident…” Nature and the universe speak to this end.

How can we define God? Scripture has some of the most beautiful verses in the Old Testament elaborating on how it is impossible to fully understand God, creation, and nature. We simply never will in this lifetime. And if He does exist, that is exactly the way He wants it, and for His own reasons.

You say that very little can be taken literally form the Bible. I would have to disagree. Yes it is beautifully interwoven with symbolic language but most historians agree that the Bible is the most accurate book in antiquity.

You suggest that my God does not explain anything because He does not know more than a desert shepherd from 2,000 years ago. Perhaps you are referring to Christ. First, I am a Christian but I do not believe Christ was or is God (God-man), but that he was 100 % man. I also believe Christ had limited knowledge (as all humans do) and was not omnipotent while on this earth.

If God is the creator and does not want to explain everything to us it is not because He knows nothing, but that He knows we have extremely limited understanding and comprehension (hard for our human egos to admit but true). And it is also for His reasons that He does not, whatever they may be.

16 09 2008

Kristine, you offer an interesting view point. On one hand you cite “most historians agree that the Bible is the most accurate book in antiquity” and yet you dismiss the punchline of the entire New Testament saying Jesus wasn’t the son of God. That’s a huge disparity in thought don’t you think? Is the Bible infallible or is it just a collection of ancient stories selected from many when Constantine convened the Council of Nicea?

God may be very mysterious in his methods, but if you look back through history God has always hidden just out of sight in the shadows of our ignorance. For the last 150 years evolution has shone consistent and undiluted sunlight into yet another corner of life where God cannot be found. I don’t suggest we know everything, obviously not, but you certainly seem to underestimate the body of knowledge mankind has uncovered using the scientific method.

Aside from the beginning of time/space and after death where else do you suggest or imagine God reveals himself?

16 09 2008


Not sure if I am misunderstanding you or visa versa. I am not suggesting Christ was not the Son of God (Messiah), I am saying I do not believe he “was or is” God.

You talk about evolution “shining consistent into a corner of life where God cannot be found.” I do not see how God cannot be found in evolution. I clearly see Him there and in all of creation.

I do not in any way underestimate the body of knowledge mankind has uncovered though science. Scientific knowledge only serves to strengthen and reinforce my belief in God. I do not see how any scientific knowledge lessens or negates the existence of God.

I will reiterate: we still have such limited knowledge of the universe and even our physical bodies that all we think we know is just a drop in the bucket, if that. Talk about things being “hidden just out of sight in the shadows of our ignorance,” as you say!

Even that which we think we see in clear view has dimensions we will never see or comprehend. Just when we think we’ve found the smallest particle, we discover it just gets deeper and we cannot break it down. When we do, it will go even deeper and take twists and turns we never imagined.

As for the final point you bring up in your last comment, I suggest that aside from time/space (and the physical realm) God reveals Himself spiritually, which in itself merits a topic of a whole different discussion.

The Bible states in Corinthians: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

I have heard many arguments and discussions about creation and evolution. No one has yet to provide any evidence that God (and the God of the Bible for that matter) does not exist. I am not attempting to provide evidence to you that He does exist, my original point of commenting was that evolution does not negate God.

16 09 2008

I honestly have no idea what “I am not suggesting Christ was not the Son of God (Messiah), I am saying I do not believe he “was or is” God” means but you still didn’t answer my question about the infallibility of the Bible. I appreciate that it’s not an easy question.

I’m sure you’ve heard it before, that one cannot prove a negative. As such it is impossible for me to “prove” God does not exist. Conversely the burden of proof rests soundly on the person making the positive assertion, as in the case of all other religions. Conveniently there are passages that you can quote that dismiss this inconvenience as some form of ironic proof of God’s clever existence or that it is apparently not part of His plan to reveal himself, but they’re all just overly complicated cop outs to dodge the issue.

So if it pleases you I concede that evolution does not disprove God. Evolution does however provide a repeatable and predictive understanding of how the diversity of life we see around us and in the fossil record came about. This knowledge has reduced the understanding that God created all the animals and man in just a few days from a powerful literal truth never to be questioned by the faithful to a mere metaphor that can be disregarded like so much else in the Bible. In that regard my previous blog essay stands to complete the argument that God only safely exists in the areas of our ignorance. I do hope you’ll read it and better understand the point I’m failing to make well here.

16 09 2008


As for my first statement in my last comment it may have been due to a misunderstanding of what I thought you were trying to say in your previous comment. And right now I am still not sure what you were saying or asking by implying that I, “dismiss the punch line of the entire new testament,” in regards to the infallibility of the Bible.

You say the burden of proof rests on the one who is making the positive assertion. Let me remind you that we are not in a court of law, nor at the judgment seat of God. I do not need to prove anything to those who choose not to believe in God after knowing His revealed Word, because God has not given me permission to override another’s free will decision on the matter. The Bible is clear that many will not believe. There is great wisdom in knowing there are those you cannot reach.

You state, “This knowledge [of evolution] has reduced the understanding that God created all the animals and man in just a few days from a powerful literal truth never to be questioned by the faithful to a mere metaphor that can be disregarded like so much else in the Bible.”

To this I will say that how the Bible is “interpreted, “understood” or “questioned” does not negate it’s validity or the truth of what is being said. In my last comment in your other post (God Hides in the Shadow of ignorance) I elaborated on this just a little. (I’m actually getting a little confused here about what post I said what under and visa versa.) 🙂

The knowledge of evolution in no way reduces the Bible’s account of creation. In the book of revelation there is MUCH symbolic language. Our limited understanding of it will not reduce the reality of these events as they unfold or have unfolded (some of revelation is on events that have already past).

Truth is what it is and it cannot be reduced by our knowledge or understanding of it. God either created the stars and the universe, and mankind, or He didn’t.

And I do understand the points you are trying to make. You do not believe in God, especially the God of the Bible and you wish to make that known and are hoping to enlighten others to your point of view. You have every right to do this as we all have freedom of will to believe the things we feel are true.

Not this evening, but I will take the time to read the last article you linked to.

16 09 2008

Burden of proof is not an issue of law but of logic. There is also long rather boring explanation of how given a large enough number of failures to find evidence for a positive assertion (i.e. there is a personal God who answers prayers) that the probability such an assertion is in fact true mathematically approaches zero. An interesting and mercifully brief video illustrates that you (and presumably all other Christians) are in fact atheists…I’m just slightly better at it than you are. 🙂

I hope I have not come across as shrill or condescending in our exchanges. I only wish to exchange ideas and encourage you to ask the same questions I asked many years ago when I too was a devout Christian. It has been an interesting conversation.

17 09 2008


I’m losing track here of our comments since we are going back and forth between two posts 🙂 …

You talk about logic, but really you refer to the logic (or maybe “reasoning”) that YOUR mind and the mind of others like you has a “perception” of through what you can see with your eyes, hear with your ears, taste with your mouth, feel by sensation, and process and reason with your brain. (As a note: logic and reasoning are easily confused and can be at odds with one another.)

Logic in reality transcends MANY dimensions beyond human comprehension that we simply cannot grasp. It really gets back to the issue of our very limited human ability to understand the workings of our own minds, our lives, spirituality, energy forces, physics, and the universe as a whole.

Those sensory perceptions mentioned above are very tiny pieces of the puzzle. Think of a bug. It has such small mind (the size of a pinhead) but to him, what he can perceive and comprehend is his entire reality. That does not mean a whole other world or dimension beyond what he can ever know exists. We are like bugs in the sense that we simply have very limited mental, physical and spiritual capacity. That fact is not something that is under our control; we obviously were designed that way.

You are making an assertion that you know something here and it seems contradictory, because if memory serves me you admittingly implied that you don’t really know for sure that what you think you know about whether there is a God or not is true at all.

Yet you make assertions that you have a handle on the reality and truths behind scripture, logic, and another person’s beliefs and faith.

Your point of view is based more on your perception through your limited understanding than the deepest dimensions of true logic and reality. As for mathematics and probability, you must have read my mind, because I brought up a question regarding that, in my last comment to your other post, that I have wanted to know the answer to for some time.

And no you have not come across shrill or condescending, I understand you are expressing your opinions. 🙂

18 09 2008

Who created the beginning?

Jesus Loves You,


18 09 2008

Who created the “who” you suggest created the beginning?

Super Jesus Mocks You,

Super J.

20 09 2008

Mocking people, or just saying that you mock them, is probably not the best way to “not come across as shrill or condescending in our exchanges.” Even if you intend it in a joking manner, it can easily be misinterpreted. I’d suggest reconsidering saying that, if you value fostering understanding and mutual respect above making fun of people for your own amusement.

So far as ultimate beginnings go, it seems that one is left with either an infinite regress or is forced to posit something as a brute, ontological fact. I know of no way to eliminate or prove either option (if you do, please share it with us). If you think it’s “turtles all the way down” that’s fine with me so long as you’re a decent human being who works to better society.

20 09 2008


I agree with Jacob. I was going to come back to your site to check out your other posings. When saw that remark I had very different feelings. (I am currently viewing this under My Comments.) In a way it just made me lose respect for whatever it is you have to say. Maybe I can get past that, but I don’t know.

20 09 2008

Jacob and Kristine, you both seem to take what is a comment clearly targeted at someone else rather personally. Where you have both taken the time to offer thoughtful comments I like to think I have responded in kind. Since Darwin and evolution makes no suggestion about the origins of life itself I felt Romansky was glibly tossing off a non-sequitor that is really not relevant to the conversation of evolution, and my comment in response reflected that.

Furthermore, his offering a “Jesus Loves You” on what is obviously a blog authored by an atheist is both condescending and disrespectful, again meriting a similar closing. Besides, you’re on a site that is called “The Gospel of Super Jesus” and it only now you’re taking offense? Please.

20 09 2008


I do not see how what the Rev. commented on was not relevent to the conversation. Since the title of this post is “…Darwin…there is no God.” So the origins of life do pertain directly to this post, since it is basically an evolution vs. creation deal. So I don’t really get your point in that regard.

I am not offended by your views. But the comment to him did seem very condecending. Maybe it really wasn’t any of my business to get involved.

20 09 2008

I’m not at all offended. Nor would I be offended if a sincere follower of another religion invoked a blessing on me or tried to remind me of the benign doctrines of his or her religion.

However, I don’t imagine that “Super Jesus Mocks you” was intended to be a welcoming or friendly closing. I really doubt that such a closing is helpful in fostering useful debate and suggest that you reconsider whether such a comment furthers the aims that are most important to you. It seems similar to fundamentalists damning people to hell for having different beliefs (something you’ve probably encountered); it probably creates animosity and raises barriers between people and I think we should be taking them down.

I regret the great lack of tolerance many Christians have had through the ages for people of different beliefs, nontheists included. It is only rather recently that most people have been able to freely deny the existence of God in much of society without fear of negative repercussions. That’s very unfortunate; instead of pushing people away and dividing up into us vs. them, I’d like to welcome atheists, and people of other beliefs, into the discussion. If we were to fall into name calling and insults, that goal would be significantly set back.

I dunno. Does that sound reasonable?

21 09 2008

It should be obvious that much of my site is tongue in cheek and that the titles of many posts are meant to taunt and provoke people from all sides into entering the debate. I’m interested in discussing these topics but I think you would agree that most Americans would not show any deference or respect to the beliefs of someone pushing Greek mythology as a true reflection of reality. I am willing to respect each person but I do not pretend to show deference or respect to any unreasonable belief that is taken on faith and not supported by any kind of evidence or rational explanation.

I can understand your offense and yet I wonder how you would have responded in a mildly teasing way to someone who pops onto your blog about global warming with the comment:

“If global warming is real, then what is the temperature of the other side of this flat earth?

Praise Zeus!

Shamen Lebowski

I’m disappointed you’re offended, but my comment was obviously directed at one person. I appreciate the olive branch offered and I will try to be funnier and perhaps less offensive in the future, but only to people who take the time to make a real argument and not to those who effectively shout the text from bumper stickers as they drive away.

24 09 2008

I don’t know why you are “disappointed that [I’m] offended.” As I previously indicated, “I’m not at all offended.” Nor did I take your remarks personally.

I simply didn’t think the remarks that I observed promoted the sort of dialog and society that I think we should have, and which I think you probably want too.

Humor is a great tool to use in getting people to realize the absurdities of some of their beliefs. I’d simply say that maybe we should all try to make it more clear that we’re making fun of the beliefs and not the believers. (Maybe “Super Jesus mocks your beliefs”? I dunno)

By the way, I’ve really enjoyed the Mr. Deity shows since I first stumbled on them about two years ago. I think season one was generally superior to season two. Hopefully they’ll get their mojo back.

I look forward to reading your future blog material. Best wishes.

12 02 2009
Darwin Birthday Tribute « The Gospel of Super Jesus

[…] Church Confesses Darwin Was Right, There Is No God […]

10 09 2009

Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 🙂 Cheers! Sandra. R.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: