Thus saith the LORD,
Stand ye in the ways, and see,
and ask for the old paths, where is the good way,
and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.
But they said, We will not walk therein.
Jeremiah 6:16
"The United Methodist Church was formed in 1968 as a result of a merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church.
The 1800s Methodist Church split over slavery is not covered here except to note the split was not only their view of slavery, but also creationism and other topics. 
Thomas Yorty, in a review of academic Methodist thought, wrote that “use of the argument from design abounds in the [UMC’s] Review. Significantly, however, the [design] argument after 1877 seems to be used as a way to accommodate or modify Darwin’s ideas.”
Yorty concludes that after 1877 the accommodationists’ view, often articulated as theistic evolution, or where God used evolution to create life, often dominated Methodist academic thought.
Professor Dawn Digrius, in a review of how theistic evolution became established in Protestant churches, and specifically the UMC, observed that Rev. Lyman Abbott’s mission was to persuade Americans that “science and faith were compatible and ... as he and John Fisk believed, ‘Evolution was God’s way of doing things’ and ... there had never been any conflict between science and religion, nor was there any need for reconciliation, because harmony had always existed.”
As an advocate of evolution, Congregationalist Lyman Abbott (1835–1922) naively assumed the scientific evidence supported Darwinism and focused on accommodation of evolution with Protestantism. Church historian William Warren Sweet wrote Abbott was so important that “no religious leader in the modern period has exercised a more abiding influence” on American Protestantism, including on the Methodist Church.
Digrius then traces the influence of Fisk and Abbott to Methodist minister Lynn Harold Hough (1877–1971), who supported the accommodationists’ view, and taught that Christianity could 
assimilate evolutionary concepts without compromise. As a dean at Methodist Drew Theological Seminary, where he had been a professor since 1930, and dean since 1934 until he retired in 1947, he was involved in training thousands of ministers and other church leaders.
About this time, William H. Phelps, editor of The Michigan Christian Advocate, wrote that the conviction of John T. Scopes in Dayton, Tennessee, produced “careful thinking on the part of every one of us”. He concluded Methodists should “begin to use evolution a bit instead of abusing the scientists!”
As a result of this statement by Phelps, on Monday, 31 August 1925, formal charges were brought against Hough and William H. Phelps by Rev. Bird led by Dr E.J. Warren of the Detroit Conference. Consequently, the Methodist Episcopal Church was forced to respond to the heresy charges. Congregants who agreed with the views of Hough recalled the enthusiasm with which his sermon was received locally. Although the committee was reticent to have the press present at the meeting, Bird demanded media coverage, and the committee reluctantly agreed. Bird declared he opposed the “encroachments of the evolutionary theory upon religion” and believed that “the doctrine of evolution was going to split the church in two”.
The UMC committee met and recommended the Detroit Conference refuse to even consider Bird’s charges. When the UMC conference received the report, they responded with “loud and prolonged cheering”.
Widespread coverage of the heresy proceedings strongly supported Hough over Bird. This event was important in solidifying the Darwinists’ position in the UMC.
Digrius asserted that those persons like Hough wish to deflate the conflict, a goal that includes groups such as The Clergy Letter Project. Their goal is to bring clergy and scientists together in an effort to convince them that “numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith”. In fact, the project’s goal actually silences Darwin critics in the church.
The acceptance of evolution by leaders of the Methodist Church was by no means unanimous. 
When the 1986 Louisiana Darwinism anti-indoctrination case designed to protect teachers’ right to objectively present the evidence for and against evolution in the classroom was before the Supreme Court, several UMC bishops filed a brief against this bill. Specific Methodists involved included Bishop Kenneth Williams Hicks of the Arkansas UMC Conference and Bishop Frederick C. James of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Arkansas.
The official position of the UMC since at least 2008 is very clear: theistic evolution, which translates into evolution with a thin coat of theism.
“United Methodist General Conference passed three petitions that accept the theory of evolution.
One opposes the introduction of any faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design into public-school science curricula.”
Another example officially supporting evolution is in answer to a question published on the official church website: “What is the UMC’s position on evolution?” The answer was: “the official statement is, ‘We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.’”
Under the subtitle “It’s time for people of faith to accept evolution,” we read that the UMC needs
“... to overcome its qualms about evolution for the sake of our children, each other and the future of society ... . in accepting the findings of science. Together we need to correct the misconceptions and discard the myths. Eugenie C. Scott, the executive director of the [aggressively anti-creationist] National Center for Science Education, says that rejecting evolution puts at risk the high level of scientific achievement that has helped propel the United States to a position of economic, technological and political leadership. ..."
The UMC has since then become even more hostile against any opposition to Darwinism, and church bishops are not innocent in this controversy. In 2016, they were given the title ‘censor of the year’ by the Discovery Institute for banning a group of Christian educators and scientists from displaying scientific literature at the Oregon conference, even though many other groups, including some very controversial ones, were allowed space to present their literature.48 The banned scientists were part of the Discovery Institute that produces books and films about the wonders of nature that give testimony to the Creator. ....The specific source of the ban to exclude the Discovery Institute from the church’s General Conference is unclear, but the result was to censor discussion of intelligent design. When the Discovery Institute inquired about the source of the ban, they were told only that Commission ‘leadership’ made the decision. The UMC—although its motto is “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors”—refused to disclose who made up this shadowy ‘leadership’ group." CMI/Jerry Bergman