Transcript of Archbishop's interview with The Guardian
Tuesday 21st March 2006
坎特伯雷大主教：噢，不，不太習慣。我以為creationism這東西，可以說是種牛頭不搭馬嘴的錯誤（範疇錯誤），說得好像聖經是紜紜理論中的一套似的。聖經對創造的講法，怎麼說也好，總不是紜紜理論中的一套。這種說法就好像把創世記的作者（或甚麼也好）講成閒坐下來，沉吟道，嗯，這些事應該怎樣講明白才好呢......這樣講吧，「起初上帝創造天地......」－－不是這麼一回事。一方面，有萬有都賴於上帝創造之舉這種信念，另一方面，又多少有點保留態度或說不定，不知道上帝創造之時究竟如何創法－－這兩種想法並不相左。我以為在基督教歷史裡，大部分－－說大部分也算公道吧，大部分基督教歷史裡頭一直都有那種「兩者並不相左」的意識。你可以找到像聖奧斯定之類的人，一方面絕對明白上帝創造萬物，而且把創世記的內容以相當字面的意思來解釋，但是轉過頭又說，唔，到底provide世界上轉變的potentiality的是甚麼呢？如此一來，我們就得想一想，他說所說的－－正如在世界上develop structures，那推動所有轉變過程的那些seeds of potential in the world是甚麼回事。十九世紀有些基督徒看達爾文，就是這樣說的：噢，那套說法聽起來有點像聖奧斯定所講的seeds of processes啊。既然如此，如果我們把creationism講成一套紜紜理論中的另一可取理論，我想那一定是 a jar of categories，而不是它本來要說的東西。況且，那種說法，正是那種說法強調了一種觀念......
AR: Are you comfortable with teaching creationism?
ABC: Ahh, not very. Not very. I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this.... I know ' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time. You find someone like St. Augustine, absolutely clear God created everything, he takes Genesis fairly literally. But he then says well, what is it that provides the potentiality of change in the world? Well, hence, we have to think, he says, of - as when developing structures in the world, the seeds of potential in the world that drive processes of change. And some Christians responding to Darwin in the 19th Century said well, that sounds a bit like what St. Augustine said of the seeds of processes. So if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories, I think there's - there's just been a jar of categories, it's not what it's about. And it - it reinforces the sense that...
AR: So it shouldn't be taught?
ABC: I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is - is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it.