Church owes Charles Darwin apology over evolution theory?

Another example of journalistic oversimplification making a charged headline out of something really rather mundane. It's here: Church owes Charles Darwin apology over evolution theory, says senior Anglican | World news | guardian.co.uk; "A Church of England spokesman said Brown's piece was a 'personal view' of Darwin's contribution to science and did not amount to an official apology by the church."
That's the important bit to start with really (the article has it last). The only reason that it gets the official apology treatment is that it appears on the CofE's website as one of a series of articles on Darwin, the Origin of Species and related matters. I'm not sure one can offer an apology, except rhetorically, to a dead person. Regret could be expressed, a change of heart and attitude can be testified to, amends might even be made where applicable. But in this space-time continuum, it's too late to apologise. So I really don't know which box to dot in this survey.Because, apart from anything else, it may appear that to say 'no' to the question "Should the Church apologise to Charles Darwin?" is to say some church reactions (and this is the other difficulty, not all by any means) were justified in their dismissiveness and even venom. Whereas I want to say 'no' because of the reasons I give above.

I guess the other thing we can do is learn to be slow to judge and careful to listen more fully and to think more carefully about new stuff.