Talk:Theistic evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theistic evolution article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Important notice: Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about theistic evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins or Wikireason.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
To-do list for Theistic evolution: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Improve citations
  • Expand:
    • Other religions: There is no mention of non-Abrahamic views. Even if there is little or no conflict with evolutionary theory in other religions, a section explaining why that is so might be advisable.
    • Proponents: The contemporary advocates section would probably be better as prose. Some statistics on current belief in evolution amongst scientists/biologists might also provide some context.
    • Criticisms: More criticisms from the literalism side
    • Section on intelligent design needs most expansion
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Added this part about Professor Flew

"This statement is actually incompatible with Deism, since it suggest that God interacted with the universe after its creation." However, Professor Flew subsequently retracted this statement in an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005.

I'd like to point out that his first statement was incompatible with Deism. His first statement would have been intelligent design. However, he did take back his statement. -intranetusa

I'm not sure why Professor Flew needs to be mentioned here. Is he a prominent philosopher, or was his conversion to deism an important development? If not, then I think the paragraph should be removed. Since the article states that he later retracted the given quote, that seems to reduce the relevance of the quote. --03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move and archives

Right, I hope that this will sort out the current confusion. Ed Poor moved Evolutionary creationism to Theistic evolution, leaving a bit of a mess behind. To sort this out, I've archived the old talk pages, as shown above.

Ed also moved the page without seeking to build a consensus first. However, after the move there appeared to be a consensus that it had been moved to the right page (see Archive 2). So, rather than moving it back again, I propose that we keep it here unless a consensus develops that it's in the wrong place. I hope that this is OK. --G Rutter 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I protest the move, which should be reverted. The term evolutionary creationism emphasizes its commonality with creationists, no matter how much other creationists may dislike it. This move was done against prior consensus: it was debated a long time back, and consensus was to leave it evolutionary creationism. Pollinator 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that's the point, TEs do NOT consider ourselves creationists at all. Evolutionary creationism unfortunately, is a very non-NPOV term. Dracil 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
For that matter, I think it'll be good for a new debate. One of the biggest problems was that the original creator of the TE and EC was already biased towards EC being the dominant term, and a couple years of the pages being left that way sort of reinforced Wiki people's views that that was indeed correct, regardless of how the non-Wiki world felt. Dracil 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about EC being "non-NPOV"- it's the one I personally prefer to describe myself, as I think it better emphasises the two halves of the argument but I have no problems with using TE as well/instead. Nonetheless, it does seem that TE is more widely used. Whether some TEs don't consider themselves creationists doesn't change the fact that from NPOV they clearly are- and as Pollinator notes this desire for disassociation cuts both ways! Anyway, let's re-examine the consensus of where this page should be:

  • Arguments for TE: Google has it as more widely used, it highlights the fact it is closer to evolutionary views than other creationist views.
  • Arguments for EC: Does Google really count in things like this? It highlights the fact that it is actually a form of creationism (whether you like it or not!).

I'm sure there's other arguments on both sides, so lets see what people think and then move the page to the appropriate place (if I can be this bold, can we ignore the fact of where the page is and the fact that Ed certainly didn't follow procedure to get it here and concentrate on where the rest of us think it should actually be?). For the record, my vote is currently for EC. --G Rutter 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Either heading is fine by me: at one time I thought two articles would be appropriate, but from discussion with Pollinator and G Rutter was persuaded that the continuum of overlapping ideas described by both terms makes a single article better, and accepted their preference for EC. This has the advantage of emphasising faith in Creation at the same time as agreeing/accepting evolution. TE makes it clear which side of the "Creationism" argument proponents fall and so could reduce confusion, at the expense of making a black and white argument out of more nuanced theological distinctions. Either way I think the "Creationism" template should include a link to this page to cover the continuum. One thing that seems to have been lost is a usage of EC to describe a fusion of Jewish sources with string theory, as I recall. There was a link for that , but it seems to have been removed apart from a hint in the last paragraph of the intro. ...dave souza 22:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say TE is a form of Creation, but can no longer be under the umbrella of Creationism. "Creationism" has become a tainted term, from a practical side. When people talk about Creationists trying to get rid of evolution in classrooms, are they talking about TEs? No. When people bring up Creationists on the streets handing out leaflets about how neo-Darwinism is some racist conspiracy theory by scientists, are they talking about TEs? No. When fundies talk about their fellow bible-believing Creationists brethren, are they usually including TEs? Again No. And so on. So why, when TEs are not even considered part of Creationism by and large by most people involved in these discussions/debates, should we be associated with it?
In any case, I've put the link to this discussion on christianforums.com (the largest Christian message board on the net) in the Creation & Evolution board, as well as the Theistic Evolution board, to see how people there feel about the issue. Dracil 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, for completeness sake, the links to the pages are Creation&Evolution forum discussion on this and Theistic Evolution forum discussion on this, in case people want to hear what non-wikipedians think. Dracil 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Dracil, it may be your POV that "creationism" is "tainted" and that you don't want to be "associated with it", but from an NPOV TE/EC is a form of creationism (defn: "belief that God created the universe") which believes that God used/uses the methods/ways discovered by modern science. I agree entirely that people don't usually mean TEs when they talk about creationists, but I don't think that that really proves anything.
Dave, thanks for your points- I agree. I'll try and look for the Jewish reference you mean. --G Rutter 16:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
But similarly, it is your POV that they are not. If you agree that people aren't talking about TE when talking about Creationists and pushing Creationism into classrooms, then you've agreed that to most people, TE does not fit under Creationism. Yet there seems to be this logical disconnect to try to stuff it under there anyway. By saying the term is tainted, I mean that the word has taken additional connotations that are outside the original definition of the word itself. Words do not exist in a vacuum isolated from their usage in the real world and their practical definitions change. It's like how the word "gay" has now become a word used primarily to mean homosexuals, rather than the original definition of being happy and lively. Dracil 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not clear what point you're trying to make here. I think that creationism is one of those (many) words where there's a popular definition and a more precise definition, which don't necessarily correlate precisely. I don't know how you can claim that using creationism to describe TE is a "logical disconnect"- I've given a definition of creationism which logically includes TE. I also think that that definition would be accepted by the majority of people if they thought about it, rather than simply thinking "fundamentalist crackpot" (or whatever) when the word is mentioned.
As a Christian who belives in EC/TE myself I do get embarrassed at my fellow Christians who are Young Earth Creationists, etc. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop using the word creation- it just means I have to qualify it more than I otherwise would. However, this is all off the point really, which is, is TE or EC the most widely used phrase to describe this set of beliefs? --G Rutter 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Your 'more precise' definition is a pretty obscure one. Almost every discussion of creationism I've been involved in has used a definition which excludes TE. Both dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's online service give definitions which reflect that common usage. And even the Wikipedia definition of creationism excludes TE, since technically a TE need invoke no supernatural intervention. The commonly accepted definition serves a useful purpose; it draws a distinction between those who accept the mainstream scientific description of origins and those who reject it. I'm afraid I find your definition rather unhelpful. It's just not the way the word is used, and will only serve to muddy the waters.
Oh, and as you've probably guessed already, TE is the term I'm more familiar with. In my experience, it's overwhelmingly more common than EC. ~ Tsumetai 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I actually agree with your interpretation of Merriam-Webster's definition: "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis". Usually implies "not always". I also note that M-W has an entry for "scientific creationism" which seems to undermine your argument as I guess that it will define this as creation through evolution (although I am guessing as I have no intention of handing over my credit card details to get the actual definition). I'm also confused about your argument that TE doesn't invoke a supernatural explanation? Can you give your definition of TE please? --G Rutter 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The important part of the M-W definition is 'out of nothing'. TEs don't believe that the various forms of life were created ex nihilo. And 'scientific creationism', as I understand the term, is synonymous with 'creation science' - the attempt to construct apparently scientific theories based in creationist beliefs, as an alternative to mainstream science. As to my definition of TE, I'm happy with the one given in the article. However, it fits a deist who believes that God created the Universe and let it run by the rules he set down. I don't think that scenario necessarily fits the Wikipedia definition of creationism, though I'll admit it could be argued either way. ~ Tsumetai 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
To Grutter's 19:03 reply above, I wouldn't stop using the word "creation" either, but I *do* stop using the word "creationism." Creation as used in the discussions is not such a loaded term unlike the -ism version.
But I agree, the main point IS which is the most widely used phrase to describe this set of belief. I have given (with a few more here) several pieces of evidence that it is TE. 1) Google. 2)The largest Christian messageboard itself splits the Christian-only discussion into Creationism subforum, and a Theistic Evolution subforum. 3)I have just posted another link to the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of Christian scientists, and even they use Theistic Evolution more often, and more often than not, when they use the EC term, they use it without the -ism at the end, plus the EC term when used, is usually bracketed and/or following the Theistic Evolution term. 4)There is a theistic-evolution.org site, there is no evolutionary-creationism.* site. 5) So far, there does not seem to be any evidence from the EC side showing that their term is in more popular use, and the arguments for it have only been from the semantic and philosophy of language side. Dracil 09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Of the 3 responses I've had so far on the links I gave above, 2 people also feel that TE is better, while another feels that both are bad, and feels that preferably, a new term "Evolutionary Theism"/"Evolutionary Theist" should be used, which I agree would be more NPOV, but is not something that's in common usage. Dracil 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One puppy's opinion: I concur with Tsumetai on this one - I support TE, I'm not going to fuss if EC is chosen. I'd like to see it settled so I can fix all the pipes and redirects. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Tsumetai, you linked to the Wikpedia article on Creationism for definition: please read further in the article and note that Creationism#Types of creationism includes TE / EC. ...dave souza 22:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that the American Scientific Affiliation, a pretty big (from what I can tell) organization of Christian scientists, also seem to mainly prefer the use of Theistic Evolution. When EC is used, it's often "Evolutionary Creation" without the -ism, bracketed, and/or following Theistic Evolution in precedence. In other words, it's generally treated as a secondary term. If push comes to shove, I would probably be fine with this version as a compromise. Dracil 09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that, especially with the arguments already given in Archive 2, we can regard the consensus as settled on TE. Dracil, if you're refering to my arguments when you talk about arguments from the "semantic and philosophy of language side", I was arguing that it's perfectly appropriate to regard TE as a form of creationism, whatever we choose to call it. For example, a quote from a letter sent to Tony Blair from the British Christians in Science group: "The term 'creationism' is often applied to this view [Young Earth Creationism], sometimes to the disquiet of those of us who also believe in divine creation but do not find it necessary to reject mainstream science." I hope that we can agree that: a) This page stays at TE and b) This page stays in both the Evolution and Creationism categories. --G Rutter 09:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's fine. Dracil 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design

Should the ID stuff be in the article? Considering that ID is different from Theistic Evolution. Dracil 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so either- I've removed the ID template. --G Rutter 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting for input and perhaps assistance about TE-ers thoughts on ID

Some people (including myself) mistook ID as TE/EC when we first heard about ID. There's a discussion in the ID/Talk about whether or not to include a distinction between ID and TE/EC in the ID article. So far, it's 4 oks & no nays to include such a distinction.

[[1]]

Would like to hear opinion from TE/EC editors before we directly mention TE/EC in the ID article. Will understand if there's opposition.Lovecoconuts 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing inherent in Intelligent Design that precludes Evolution.Pollinator 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say include the distinction. Generally speaking, many IDists are really Creationists in disguise (see the word replacement fiasco in the Of_Pandas_and_People article). Also Behe's irreducible complexity stuff is pretty core to the ID philosophy, which is not a part of TE/EC. ID is not science, while TE is scientifically indistinguishable from materialistic/atheistic evolution (which is why they're allies against ID being taught in science classes). Dracil 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Distinction has been added in the ID article. It's just one sentence, which I hope will be enough.Lovecoconuts 11:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just popping in to say, sentence added is: "Intelligent design stands in contrast to theistic evolution, which does not conflict with scientific theories."
ID article is overlength, we try for maximum info with minimum verbiage. If this statement is inaccurate or could be improved, please enter your thoughts at Talk:Intelligent_design#Archival - thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] intro: methodology

I find "methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism," presumably in oblique reference to methodological naturalism, a bit confusing. "Philisophical naturalism" links to the naturalism article, which does include the varying types of naturalism including MN. But the term "philosophical naturalism" itself is usually taken to mean ontological naturalism, which the methodological naturalism of theistic evolutionists is definitely not. I've remove the word "philosophical." --ragesoss 14:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism?

Is the Hinduism reference really necessary? Generally the Creationism-Evolutionary debate is limited to Abrahamic religions. For that matter, why not include Buddhist, Shintoist, Neopagan and tribal "attitudes" toward the subject as well? I feel the "Hindusim" section should be removed. Kazak 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Certain participants in the debate often argue that all religions hold their (usually creationist) belief, and an "Other religions" section would be useful to avoid misconceptions. Of course Buddhists are not necessarily theists. ...dave souza 11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
To make such a reference encyclopedic, you would need to cite one of these theists making the claim that all religions are creationist, and then provide facts to the effect that Hinduism is not. Endomion 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

"For strictly scientific purposes, the theistic evolutionary point of view about evolution is indistinguishable from the evolution as proposed by people who consider themselves as materialists or atheists."

Is the above affirmation true? If the answer is yes, I’d like to add it into the article. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is broadly true: you might put it like this "From a strictly scientific point of view, the theistic evolutionary view of evolution is indistinguishable from that of people who consider themselves materialists or atheists, since belief in the ultimately divine source of creation is not considered to require any different approach to scientific method or reasoning." Myopic Bookworm 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic Evolution specific to Christianity?

I don't understand why the first paragraph seem to specify Theistic Evolution has a "christian" view. Many religion would and are compatible with theistic evolutionary views. --207.216.251.85 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, will change that. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article/s should include some information on the 'theory' that the observable creation was 'accomplished' by 'Kal' and not by 'God'. I have not seen this mentioned anywhere, but the book 'Anuraag Saagar' by Yugalanand of India comprises an explanation of Creation that accounts for God and, in my view, also accounts for what may be perceived as the 'imperfection' of a God created 'thing'.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.3.245 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Then add it! You're the one with the book (I assume), and in the worst case it's not like it's something that can't be removed or reverted later. Be bold! Then be italics! The Mink Ermine Fox 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortening this article

This article is now very long, and I think it is being overbalanced by very detailed discussion (including long quotations) of particular Christian debates over the interpretation of the creation story in the book of Genesis. Althugh this issue is obviously at the centre of the disagreement between theistic evolutionists and literal creationists, I don't think it's actually central to the topic of theistic evolution. The whole stance of theistic evolution is that we study the physical world through science, and therefore have to approach the Bible with the knowledge we gain from it. Wikipedia needs to have somewhere a presentation of the debate about literal and non-literal Biblical interpretation, but this isn't the place. (Tolkien's comment about myth as truth was actually directed at the myth of the resurrected god, manifest as true in the story of Christ, and had nothing to do wth creation.) Myopic Bookworm 22:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I just read through the article and was thinking the same thing. I would support your effort to shorten it. - Jersyko·talk 22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But I think we should keep in this article some of the debate about "literal" and "non-literal" Biblical interpretation. A (quick) mention to Augustine's allegorical interpretation of the creation story is especially relevant, since many mistakenly believe that Christians only started to read Genesis as a non-literal text after science "proved it wrong". --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 02:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. However, given that this is a highly controversial topic, I suggest all removals be oked on the talk page first. JoshuaZ 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


After some time thinking, I suggest that we copy everything currently in "Evolution and Christian interpretations of Genesis" to a separate article called "Allegorical interpretations of Genesis"... and then proceed to trim this article. Then we would have an easy way to reinsert polemical removals, etc. (and allegorical interpretations of Genesis is by itself a relevant topic). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

PS.: Well, I just created the "allegorical interpretations" article… --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm being bold and removed some quotes to shorten the article (they still can be found in: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis).
I was also intending to remove the quotations from "Contemporary Christian Considerations", but then I noticed that they are not summarized in any way. To remove them now would be equal to remove all mention of these ideas from the article.--Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Creation and Evolution are not compatible

I am going to say this right now. The Biblical creation account and the Theory of Evolution are not compatible. Evolution requires death and suffering to come into the world before man. This would mean that man's sin is not the cause of death and suffering. So, now God is a liar. This also means that if death and suffering is not a result of the Fall then Jesus Christ's death on the cross was for naught. This then means Jesus is not the Savior. Anyone who is a Christian should understand how deadly that thought is. Evolution and Creation are diametrically opposed to each other. You have to accept one or the other not both. I have heard of the Day Age Theory and most Hebrew scholars have said that the days of Creation are literal days. Also, why would morning and evening be used if the days were figurative? The Day Age Theory does not line up with the Bible nor does any other attempt to mix Creation and Evolution. 209.145.244.126 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant to the article. What changes to the article are you proposing? Guettarda 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Anon, take it up with the Pope: you'll find he disagrees with you. ...dave souza, talk 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Biblical creation account, taken as a literal historical narrative, and the Theory of Evolution are not compatible. But many Christians don't believe that they have to accept the Biblical creation account as literal historical narrative. They believe that it is a parable about God as the source of all being and ultimate creator (not a historical account of how he did it) and also a parable of human relationship to God, which is marred by human disobedience. God is not a liar, but as we know from reading the teaching of his Son, he is most certainly a storyteller. I don't believe that the Prodigal Son was a real individual person: does that make Jesus a liar? Myopic Bookworm 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seen "Pulp Fiction"? A writer, using poetic expression, does not necessarily put things in their correct chronological order. Let us assume that Moses is the author of the creation story and that God revealed the actual way in which he created the universe (Evolution). What could Moses say when science itself was not part of his vocabulary, nor the concept of systematic analysis. Moses did what many people in his situation do; he resorted to poetry. The jist of what he says is: God created all things out of goodness and love. Man was "Formed", as the potter forms the clay through many transitions (Evolution) until he reaches the desired shape. To say eloquently, God formed man from the dust of the earth - Organic Life from inorganic. Man was innocent (animal) until he reached a level of consciousness that he found himself accountable for his actions (The choice to learn the difference between good and evil through "observation" or "participation"). Man chose "participation" and thus changed his nature. Up until this point death was a meaningless statement, things lived and died, things ate and were eaten with no consequence. But once man understood accountability, death gained a tremendous psychological power over him, as did sin and suffering. Once again, what Moses says is poetry, but it is also truth when one analyzes it. To continue, because man's nature was changed, because he chose participation in sin, he was fated to suffer forever. The only way for God to save man from this eternal suffering was to change man's nature again. He accomplished this by uniting himself (his divinity) with humanity thus changing our nature (what it is to be human). This is what Christ saved us from, the fate of hell. —This unsigned comment was added by Phiddipus (talk • contribs) .

So you're saying God looked on a world that was tearing itself apart through death and suffering and called it 'very good'? God called death an enemy in Hebrews and then he also called it 'very good'? Genesis explicitly says that God called his Creation 'very good'. We run into these contradictions when we take man's ideas and use them to reinterpret God's Word. That is what is done when you mix Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution. I do agree there are many examples of parables and poetry throughout the Bible. Creation is not a parable or poetry. Jesus treated Genesis as if it happened, though. Alisyd 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jesus treated Genesis as it happened" is only true if you accept the premise that the Bible, or at least the New Testament, is infallible in the first place. But let's not rehash the old earth vs. young earth vs. evolutionist and literalists vs. non-literalists debate here. As no one has offered any substantial way to improve this article in this subsection of the talk page, I suggest the discussion should probably be dropped. - Jersyko·talk 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The above argument is why so many people needlessly reject the Christian faith: because "man's ideas" include the notion of truth, and the truth is that the literal Genesis story is not consistent with what we know about the world. Many would accept Christ, but they can't accept Adam: insist on Adam, and they will reject Christ. For me, as a science graduate, I have only two options: (1) accept the facts discovered by science, and reconcile them with the truths of the Christian faith; (2) accept the facts discovered by science, and reject the Christian faith altogether. I'm not prepared to pretend that "truth" should mean something different to Christians. (Jesus, even if divine, was incarnate as a Jewish preacher of the first century: he treated the Bible according to the understanding of the people of that time.)
But I agree that further debate here probably isn't useful. Myopic Bookworm 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't continue the debate, but I must say I fell great sorrow for anyone wishes to accept man's teaching over God's and then claim they are a Christian. Alisyd 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In order to accept the point of view that some portions of some books of the old testament must be taken literally is to deny the very history of the text(s); to imagine that the “bible” is one book, to imagine that God wrote it, to deny human fallibility and the limits of human understanding, to ignore the limitations of language in expressing truth or conveying truth, to imagine that it is a complete story, to imagine that if one part (written 5000 years ago) has the same impact as another part (written 3500 years later).
On the other hand, if one accepts that the collection of texts represents the human understanding of mysteries revealed through time by God, then one must ask why God took 3500 years to write his book(s). The obvious answer being that humans in Moses’ time were more primitive and could not grasp more complex concepts; that it required time in order to form the concepts and language necessary. And if this is true we can easily understand why Abraham understood our God to be one of many Gods (El Shadai – God of the mountain) while later the prophets might have called him greatest of all Gods, still later God of Gods and Lord of Lords, then the Only God, and later still, the Triune Godhead. This all represents the evolution of ideas expressed through time to a limited human understanding.
I realize this is the subject of the article; creation vs. evolution; but I posit that for Christians to even consider this an issue is to ignore the bible itself (you claim to read it, but you are lying out of desperation to support your irrational argument). And anyone of science who in turn uses this ignorant viewpoint and an argument against the truths revealed in the bible is likewise foolish rejecting what is a valuable piece of wisdom literature as unworthy of consideration.
Here is truth: If there is a God that does not make us any less human. Humans communicate using language. Language cannot convey absolute truth because every word is interpreted by the recipient. Even if God himself wrote the text, chose every word as the perfect word, every phrase perfect, this would not change our flawed perception, we would still not understand perfectly. Humans are limited by their senses. Anything outside our senses is invisible and it is ridiculous and arrogant for us to assume our senses are all encompassing. If the various texts of the bible were inspired by God, if truth was revealed to man, then we must bare in mind those human limitation in the writer and know that he could only come close to understanding what he saw, and came even less close in conveying that to us through the text. Christians are not bound (and have never been bound) by the Old Testament. They have never been required to keep the 600+ Jewish laws. Why imagine that we must accept as absolute fact a text that cannot possibly be absolute fact. I am not saying to reject it, I am saying to draw the truth from it.--Phiddipus 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
to accept man's teaching over God's That the Bible must be taken literally is man's teaching. If it were God's teaching, it would not conflict with his world. (Thanks for your thoughts, Phiddipus.) Myopic Bookworm 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I didn't clarify myself. What I meant to say is this: If one believes Christianity(man's fall, Christ dying for sins, believe on him and you will be saved, God's Word {The Bible} is infallible) then in order for one to also accept evolution is to accept man's teachings. If Genesis is to be taken as figurative, can not the Gospels then be taken figuratively. Josh McDowell, a theologian said in his book A Ready Defense, "If the literal sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense." Scripture should be interpreted as literally as possible and if that is impossible, one must move to figurative interpretation. The Bible itself says it is truth and if you believe it is infallible then you must believe it to be true. Evolution is not compatible with the literal account of creation. I hope this clears up my views. Alisyd 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I guess this explains strict constructionism. In any event, I'm still not sure what changes are being suggested to improve the article. - Jersyko·talk 17:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Alisyd, The fundamental problem with such logic is that it assumes if one part is not to be taken literally, then all parts likewise share the same scrutiny. This makes some seriously specious assumptions: 1. That the bible is one book. 2. That from page one to page last, it is all the same, completely denying its 3500 years of creation. 3. To treat the question as if the complete text was “discovered” and a religion grew up around it and not the other way around.
Flawed human nature makes us resistant to growth. Everything we read in scriptures indicates that God does not want us to remain ignorant, but rather to grow in our understanding of Him and his creation. He makes it clear, by coming to earth and preaching “Love thy Enemy” that he constantly wants us to strive to be better and better, to become “like” Him. But the devil whispers to us, “use the scriptures to justify ignorance and hatred, after all its God’s word”. But this is a lie, Christ is God’s Word incarnate. Christ never justified the Pharisees in their strict keeping of the law but rather reminded us that Love is all important. From the moment that God united himself with man, human nature changed. When Christ and the apostles entreat us to reject the wisdom of men, they were referring to those various pagan philosophies of the day (especially rhetoric). What comes afterward, after Christ, is the wisdom born out of the church (Christ’s Body) which he established, over which the Holy Spirit presides, and promised would remain forever pure. So likewise a clear vision of logic and science was also born out of the church in opposition to rhetoric. While it is true that some have gone too far and used science to deny God; when one applies careful and objective science the only logical scientific conclusion about Gods existence is “We Don’t Know”, which is perfectly fine considering that science is not theology. However, the one thing that science must concede is that the strict limitations of science make it impossible to “Prove” or “Know” anything absolutely. A true scientist would never presume to overstep the boundaries or limitations of science. --Phiddipus 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Christianity(man's fall, Christ dying for sins, believe on him and you will be saved, God's Word {The Bible} is infallible) -but that is not a valid summary of Christianity, since many Christians hold that God's infallible Word is not simply to be identified with the book called The Bible. Scripture should be interpreted as literally as possible and if that is impossible, one must move to figurative interpretation, and a very large number of Christians now recognize that the literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible, because it conflicts with what they see in creation, and have moved to figurative interpretation.Myopic Bookworm 09:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The days in Genesis can only mean literal days in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word 'yom' is used for the word day. This is combined with numbers such as first, second, third, and the phrases morning and evening. 'Yom' is used throughout the Old Testament to convey a 24-hour day. If God had wanted to show that it was a long period of time, there are at least ten ways that this could have been done. 'Qedem' means 'ancient' or 'of old'. 'Dor' means 'an age' or 'generations'. 'Tamid' means 'continually'. 'Ad' means 'unlimited time'. 'Orek' when used with 'yom' is translated 'length of days'. 'Shanah' means 'a revolution of time'. 'Netsach' means 'for ever'. 'Yanim'the plural of 'yom' would have meant God called it the first days. 'Yom rab' would have meant 'a long day'. Lastly, instead of morning and evening, light and darkness could have been used because of their ambiguity elsewhere in the Bible. None of these words are used to describe the days in the Genesis account, just 'yom' with a number and morning and evening. Jesus and Paul quoted Genesis as truth and not allegories. Professor James Barr professor of Hebrew at Oxford University says he knows of no professor of Hebrew who would translate Genesis as other than the literal account. Lastly, if the days in Genesis were only literal, God would have misled his people for thousands of years. Only recently has there been an attempt to reinterpret the Bible using evolutionary presuppostions. Alisyd 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you on the Hebrew, because I think you are by and large correct there (although there are a few occasions in Tanach where Yom is used to mean a time period, that doesnt seem to make much sense contextually here). However, interpretations of the text in a non-literal fashion are in fact quite old, some of which are in the talmud. JoshuaZ 17:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So now we argue the meaning of "days" in a text that tells us that the sun and moon and stars were not created until the 4th day. In a void universe with no sun, moon, and stars...what is a day? And what was God thinking when he created all those trees and grass and fruit before the sun? And who created the Earth and water? The text practically makes a point of telling us Earth and water "Existed" even before light, dark and "Sky". Sorry, if its not a poem, then God should have planned it out a little better...maybe with a few days planning he could have done it all in an instant. Oh Also, apparently God doesn't work at night either, and how could their be evening and morning before sun and moon? - Its poetry! And another proof of this is found in the same text - Genesis 1:11 makes it clear God made all the plants on the 3rd day (before the sun) and man on the 6th day (genesis 1:26) but Genesis 2:4 makes it clear God made man before plants appeared - When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Two completely different accounts.--Phiddipus 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may be missing something here. What point are you trying to make? JoshuaZ 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Presumably, that insisting on taking 'day' literally is actually absurd, since 'day' cannot mean 'day' if there's no sun, and that Genesis contradicts itself if consistently taken literally. (I wonder how many prophetic passages about the day of the Lord have to be interpreted as predicting the 24-hour sovereignty of God?) Myopic Bookworm 10:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First, God is light and in him there is no darkness.(1 John 1:5) God called the light day and the darkness night. And evening and morning were the first day.(Genesis 1:5) And the city(the New Jerusalem) had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.(Revelation 21:23) God does not need the sun and moon to create light or days. He can walk on water and bring the dead back to life and you don't think he can sustain plants for two days without the sun? As for Genesis 1 and 2, it says plants of the field. This means cultivated plants not plants in general. Also, Jesus quoted both Genesis 1 and 2 in the same sentence: Have ye not read, that he at the beginning made them male and female(Gen. 1), and said For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be flesh?(Gen. 2) Would he have regarding them as contradictory if he had combined them? If you are going to interpret Genesis as figurative, there are two horrible ramifications for Christians. Jesus is a liar or at least confused because he regarded Genesis as truth. And how do we know that the whole crucifixion and ressurection stories aren't just figurative? If God can stretch the truth in one historical account(Genesis), why not the whole rest of the historical accounts in the Bible? If Genesis is not literal, where does God start being literal? These serious questions arise when we try to reinterpret God's Word with man's philosophies. 209.145.244.126 15:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This information is irrelevent for the article. Our purpose here is not to state what is or is not; merely what others believe. You could be absolutely right or completely wrong and it would not affect the article. You should take this to a discussion forum if you want to pursue the matter in more depth. --Davril2020 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Where would I find one? Alisyd 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it doesn't really matter if it's compatible or not... It's obvious that many people posting here are incapable of seeing things in a non-pov way. The purpose of this article is to describe what many people believe, not what is right or wrong, or even if it's possible for this belief to be logical. If you don't like that some people believe this, that's too bad for you. Wikipedia will document this belief anyway, as it does with all beliefs known to us. Vancar 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add something to this overwhelmingly lengthy conversation. It is an unfortunate reality that debating religious believers accomplishes nothing, as they aren't suffering from a lack of information, they are suffering from a profound affliction that impedes their ability to think critically. Giving answers isn't going to help them to stop thinking illogically, as those answers are entirely founded on logic. If you really want to put valuable time and effort into repairing the damage that has already been done, then stop giving them answers, give them questions, and let them discover on their own that science answers questions, and religion gives false hope. --RITZ 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is really not the place for this disscussion. If you would like to continue to debate this issue, please go to one of the links at the first part of the article. By the way, RITZ, the implications of what you just said are that Galileo, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstien, Charles Babbage, George Washington Carver and many others all lacked the ability to think logically. I know that that probably wasn't necessary, but it's good Wikiquette not to be angry, and unless I got that off my chest, I would be seriously pissed.Supernerd 10 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The point I was making is that people who take the time to argue for creationism today cannot be convinced because they are simply diluted. They ignore evidence, they don't embrace it. The great thinkers you mentioned (excluding Einstein, see http://en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views) lacked information; creation was the only possibility. It's funny that you mentioned Galileo, the man who was imprisoned by the church for believing that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. --RITZ 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of this article

I see that efforts were made in March to shorten this article, but it is still very long. Perhaps the entire section Evolution and Christian interpretations of Genesis could be briefly summarized since it has been essentially duplicated in Allegorical interpretations of Genesis. There is also a separate article about Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church; perhaps that section could be more brief in this article. Finally, the Contemporary advocates of evolutionary creationism is a list; perhaps it could be moved to a separate article.

What do you think? Aardvark92 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All of these suggestions seem sensible. Myopic Bookworm 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've summarized the Roman Catholic section by copying just the introductory paragraph from the other article. Anyone who wants more information can follow the link. I'll try to work on the Allegorical interpretations edit this weekend, unless someone else wants to tackle it first. Aardvark92 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
After trying a couple times to summarize it, I've decided to just delete the section Evolution and Christian interpretations of Genesis. I don't see a brief way to give just the main points without duplicating information that already exists elsewhere in this article. Furthermore, the entire section has been reproduced in the article Allegorical interpretations of Genesis, to which I've left a link in the Christianity section of this article. If anyone can create a brief summary of Evolution and Christian interpretations of Genesis, feel free to do it. But given the present options, I think it's better to leave it out than to keep it as a fork of the Allegorical interpretations article.

Reading this article as it exists now, I would say that it is just the correct length -- I want to congratulate all the editors that have worked on it for doing an excellent job. I read this article after reading the ID article and this article (TE) is light years better. Berneegirl 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] evolution3 template

There is no reason why I can't put the Evolution bar next to the "Creation" bar. After all Theistic Evolution can be seen as a combination of the two.

I'm sorry, but no. Theistic evolution is the notion that religious people can accept scientific evidence contrary to a literal interpretation of the bible. However, from a biological standpoint, it is irrelevant. Look at the {{evolution3}} template. It deals with biology, not religion nor philosophy (although it does contain a link to social effect of evolutionary theory). -- Ec5618 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree: the Evolution sidebar is essentially for scientific articles on evolutionary biology, not for articles relating science to religion or philosophy. Myopic Bookworm 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to use an evolution template, seems like {{evolution}} might be more appropriate. Dracil 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. That's still about subdivisions of a scientific subject. Theistic evolution is not strictly science: it stands outside science, as either philosophy of science or religion. Are there any Philosophy of Science templates? Myopic Bookworm 09:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critique section

Hi, Jmc. You removed (for the second time) relevant text from the "critique and discussion" section. Your reasoning seems to be that, since those paragraphs are "criticism of a criticism" they would not be adequate in the section. However, according to my knowledge of WP policies, the text you removed doesn’t really need to be under a sub-heading "Comments", as you contend. In WP, criticism and relevant rebuttals may very well stay in the same section. I intend to restore the content, but I’ll wait for a reply before taking action. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 01:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(...)

You didn’t respond to this comment or to the message I left in your user talk page, so I’m proceeding to reintroduce the paragraphs. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 19:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your first comment in this Talk concerning my edits, Leinad. I think we could probably agree to have a section headed 'Critique' containing the three (currently!) remaining paragraphs, followed by a section headed 'Response to Critique' containing the two paragraphs I removed? This would make for a much clearer understanding of the argument (in the best sense of that word!) by the general reader. ~ Jmc 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jmc. I don't think the change would improve the article. But I'd like also to know what other editors think of your proposal. Maybe you should start a new topic specifically asking for more comments. Meanwhile, I will restore the paragraphs (again), please don’t remove them anymore. Deleting relevant material only because you think it should be in another section is not the way to go.
Another problem with you edit is that to say: "sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by the principle of natural selection" is a point of view, as such we need to explain who is saying so, instead of implying everybody agrees with it. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
While I was writing the above response you proceeded to edit the article according to your suggestion. Looking at the change done, it reads better that I previously imagined. I’ll leave the text with this organization, at least for a while, to see if I get used to it. The second problem I pointed remains, though. (and maybe new ones were added). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses, Leinad. I'm pleased (naturally!) that "it reads better than [you] previously imagined". I take your point about the "second problem", though I think that, given the context, it's clear that "who is saying so" can only be the non-theistic evolutionists. Nevertheless, I've now added "for non-theistic evolutionists" to make it explicit. ~ Jmc 00:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

W00tboy, I've revised your explanation of the objection to theistic evolution by Young Earth/Christian creationists in paragraph 3. Fair enough to provide an explanation, but you had explained it by reference to the creationist criticism of evolution in general, rather than of theistic evolution in particular (see the references). ~ Jmc 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article is really excellent, I have only one very small suggestion. In the 'Response to Critique', part of the second sentence reads, "...a view that adds scientific knowledge with more personal beliefs." This 'adds/with' combo seems somewhat awkward and ungrammatical to me. I was thinking that 'adds' should be changed to 'combines', but perhaps that would change the meaning from what the editor meant? Since I'm new to this, I wanted to mention it here first, rather than either changing the word or restating that thought in a less awkward way. Berneegirl 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comment 100%, Berneegirl. The 'Response to Critique' could certainly do with some stylistic polishing. Your suggested emendation would be a minimal rub of the polishing cloth, and IMO would elucidate, rather than change, the meaning. Go ahead and polish! Be bold! ~ Jmc 19:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The term "combines" seems more grammatically correct, but it is also true that it changes the meaning a bit. Many evolutionary creationists want to distinguish the "scientific theory of evolution" and the "philosophical acceptance of a creator" as two separate ideas that they put together to form a comprehensive worldview. I’m afraid that to use combines may give the wrong impression that T.E. wants to include God in the scientific explanation. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Given both Berneegirl's suggestion for emendation and Leinad's response, I propose drawing the various strands together and eliminating the present awkwardness of expression by rewriting this part of the 'Response' along these lines:
"The dismissal of supernatural direction is not relevant to a theistic evolutionist who fully accepts the scientific view of evolution and at the same time has a personal philosophical acceptance of a creator, with these two separate ideas coming together to form a comprehensive worldview." Any comments? ~ Jmc 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 'Response to Critique' is indeed an apposite and effective response to the critique of theistic evolution, the second and third sentences of that paragraph ("It is also tempered by a limited predictive value of the evolutionary theory. To paraphrase Popper, evolution tells us 'everything about the past but nothing about the future.'") relate to evolution itself, not to theistic evolution, and certainly not to the preceding critique of theistic evolution. (Bear in mind that this 'Response' is made from the standpoint of a proponent of theistic evolution.)

I propose to remove those two sentences as being irrelevant and diluting the force of the preceding response. Any comments? ~ Jmc 07:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of comments about my proposed amendments to the second paragraph of the 'Response to Critique', I've gone ahead and carried them out, in the process rewording the first sentence to clarify and strengthen the theistic response. ~ Jmc 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Response to critique" section is completely unsourced and needs to be rewritten or removed, and the sourcing for the "Critique" section is shaky: One quote from Robert Todd Carroll does not establish that the argument presented is "a major criticism" of theistic evolution. If these sections are to be retained in the article, they should at least temporarily be moved to talk until they can be made to conform with Wikipedia policy. -- Schaefer (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Schaefer had removed the 'Response to critique' section and deleted part of the first paragraph of 'Critique' on the grounds that "Wikipedia isn't a forum for back-and-forth argumentation of anonymous parties, unattributed opinions, and especially not for issuing challenges to other editors.") -- Jmc 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'Response to critique' can go, though I doubt that its original authors would agree that it's there as a "challenge to other editors". However, they can speak for themselves.
On the other hand, the 'Critique' first paragraph legitimately stands as a succinct encapsulation of the mainstream non-theistic critique of theistic evolution, as represented by such Brights as Dawkins, Dennett and Pinker (all among Schaefer's 'Favorite popular science authors', I note). To attribute this expression of "the major criticism of theistic evolution" solely to Robert Todd Carroll (in Schaefer's revision) is, at best, misleading.
However, the first two sentences could possibly benefit from the insertion of references to some of the Brights' writings (including their website). -- Jmc 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability trumps truth. I don't dispute that Occam's razor is a commonly cited objection to theistic evolution, nor do I believe Carroll to be an exceptionally notable atheist—I didn't even recognize his name until I followed the wikilink. Nonetheless, the the opening statements of the "Critique" section need to be sourced:
"The major criticism of theistic evolution by non-theistic evolutionists focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator, for whom there is no place within the framework of scientific philosophy and its methodological requirements of naturalism and falsifiability."
The article scientific philosophy doesn't elaborate at all on this first point, and I doubt I'm alone in thinking that any explicit exclusion of God (or Thor, or Vishnu, etc.) from the scientific method is absurdly ad-hoc—science should work regardless of what ideas pre-scientific societies come up with. It wouldn't surprise me to find some notable philosopher of science asserting the article's position, but none comes to mind.
The other criticisms, which obivously have been made over and over by many people, are still overstated when described as "sufficient for non-theistic evolutionists". I'd have to travel no further than the New Age section of my local Barnes & Nobles to find a non-theist who would claim evolution to be guided by supernatural forces. Assuming non-theists as a group to understand and profess the arguments made by the likes of Russell or Dennett is no less an error than attributing to all Christians the opinions of the Pope. -- Schaefer (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for appropriate sourcing, but to require sources here is to misunderstand the nature of what's being stated.
What we have here is a straightforward reperesentation of the non-theistic evolutionist position, which argues its own case without requiring an appeal to authority. It simply makes the (fairly obvious) point that a non-theistic evolutionist by definition finds sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution in natural processes, and ipso facto considers the theistic evolutionist position untenable.
Occam's Razor is simply the epistemological tool used to arrive at this conclusion, not "a commonly cited objection to theistic evolution" per se.
Robert Todd Carroll is not cited as an authoritative source to "establish … the argument", but just provides a neatly expressed illustration of the non-theistic evolutionist position.
"I'd have to travel no further than the New Age section of my local Barnes & Nobles to find a non-theist who would claim evolution to be guided by supernatural forces." (Schaefer) But "guided by supernatural forces" is not what the article says. It refers to "a supernatural creator", and, since non-theism by definition is disbelief in (or at the very least, agnosticism about) such an entity, you'd travel a lot further than your local B&N (well, mine at least) to find a non-theist who'd profess belief in a supernatural creator!
Having said that, I do think that the clause beginning "for whom there is no place within the framework of scientific philosophy …" blurs the point, and I'll remove it. -- Jmc 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theists and the Supernatural Realm / Natural Realm

CptKirk (talk · contribs) added the following

However many theists treat Theistic evolution as an entirely natural process occuring within the natural realm. Instead of appealing to a supernatural deity, they point to the act of first creation itself, the unmoved mover principle that they believe initated the Big Bang.

and

Many theistic evolutionists do not believe in the supernatural realm but subscribe to a creator in the natural realm such as the unmoved mover.

I don't see these additions as an improvement to the article. To being with, they are too vague, language like "many theists" or "many theistic evolutionists", etc. In addition, they convey a lot less information than what is already present in the article. Guettarda 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of this topic if that is okay with you? It is your title, but I think this might one might be more appropriate. Some theists treat everything they believe as natural. For example a supernatural realm means little to the Christian who is taught that Jesus Christ was a man, who existed in history, had the attributes of the description of a natural God, which he naturally manifested on our natural planet earth. In short, the belief that all theists subscribe to the supernatural realm is inherently flawed and contradicted by theists who believe only in the natural realm. Who knows where this Atheist dogma started from, but it is not logical. (CptKirk 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
CptKirk, please cite sources for your claims which have to be verifiable to appear here. "Many" is weasel wording, and an indication has to be given of who takes this view, which may of course be a matter of how you define natural. ... dave souza, talk 09:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The onus is on the article to actually show that all theists believe in the supernatural realm. We should cite sources on both. I agree this is worth discussing. Let's see what you got and what I can get. For the meantime, here is the definition of 'natural' being 'in nature' meaning the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities [2]. Here is something to consider. Jesus Christ is man, a person in our natural world. (CptKirk 14:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Oh it has a name. http://en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/wiki/Natural_theology Do you want references repeated here? I just linked it in with the article. (CptKirk 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

CptKirk, I've again removed the paragraph you inserted at the beginning of the 'Response to Critique'. I believe that what you're talking about is not natural theology (see dave sousa's explanation below) but pantheism. Theism, on the other hand, by definition is belief in a God (or gods) who, while immanent in nature, dwells in a realm distinct from it (and therefore supernatural) - "inescapably beyond the natural", as dave sousa says below. For theists, nature is His (or their) creation (possibly by the means of evolution). Jmc 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Catholics learn in science class at school

I updated the section to include the note that Catholics learn the same curriculum for the facts evolution and the theory of the mechanisms of evolution as secular schools do. Theistic evolution is not part of the Catholic science curriculum. (CptKirk 08:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Unsurprising, as theistic evolution has no quarrel with the facts and theory of evolution taught in "secular schools" ... dave souza, talk 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The section discusses the position of the Vatican, not of Catholic schools. -- WGee 08:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the section is called Roman Catholic Church, not the Vatican. The section might discuss the position of the Holy See, but shouldn't exclude other things about the RCC. (CptKirk 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Natural theology

I've removed the following as irrelevant:

Some theologians try to explain God in nature without recourse to a supernatural realm.< ref >http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume< /ref > This is called natural theology

This is not a description of natural theology, which is the search for evidence of God in nature without recourse to revelation – the classic proponent is Paley, and the current equivalent is ID creationism. Hume was hardly a theologian, and his satire isn't a reliable source for a theology that largely developed after his time: a better source is here. This differs considerably from modern TE which treats science and religion as dealing with different realms, so that science can neither prove nor disprove faith. .. dave souza, talk 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, that source is a lot better but we should keep an open mind as to other relative references on natural theology. Which reference do think best reflects the position that a theist does not need to believe in a supernatural realm? I will use that one instead. (CptKirk 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
It would be interesting if you could find such a reference, but I think that the deity is inescapably beyond the natural: it's perhaps more the case that a theist can look to nature in a way beyond the perceptions of science as supporting a perception of God, who can set the whole framework rather than necessarily breaking His own rules with miracles:
"2. In speaking of the existence of God we should underline that we are not speaking of proofs in the sense implied by the experimental sciences. Scientific proofs in the modern sense of the word are valid only for things perceptible to the senses since it is only on such things that scientific instruments of investigation can be used. To desire a scientific proof of God would be equivalent to lowering God to the level of the beings of our world, and we would therefore be mistaken methodologically in regard to what God is. Science must recognize its limits and its inabi]ity to reach the existence of God: it can neither affirm nor deny his existence.
From this, however, we must not draw the conclusion that scientists in their scientific studies are unable to find valid reasons for admitting the existence of God. If science as such cannot reach God, the scientist who has an intelligence the object of which is not limited to things of sense perception, can discover in the world reasons for affirming a Being which surpasses it. Many scientists have made and are making this discovery."[3]
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."[4]
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that... from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."[5]
The latter two quotes come from a book described as "at one with the spirit of natural theology", though "it's up to you to believe that God created these things through these causes or not".[6]
Hope that helps. ... dave souza, talk 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution and naturalism

The "Definition" section says:

Theistic evolution holds that the religious acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.

But I think this assumes too much. Specifically, it assumes that certain advocates accept the methodological naturalism of science.

This blurs what should be a sharper distinction. The crux of the conflict between many US-based Creationism supporters and evolution supporters is over whether science should restrict itself to the natural world and avoid studying or considering the supernatural.

Unless, of course, this means that advocates of theistic evolution are simply asserting that religious people should accept this scientific restriction.

This seems odd, because such advocates would thus be making a religious statement, and I thought that NCSE et al. were studiously avoiding saying anything about religion on the grounds that it's not their business. Now it seems that they are saying forms of life came into being STRICTLY VIA NATURAL CAUSES, just as the objects in the solar system follow predictable orbits due to the unchanging law of gravity.

This would be an argument that "natural forces alone are sufficient to explain the origin" of the various species, including man. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you check the various sources, you'll find that many religious organisations, theologians and religious individuals assert that their religion has no problem with science confined to methodological naturalism, but object strongly to science studying or considering the supernatural as that is the province of religion and not subject to disproof by the scientific method. The NCSE state what the various religious positions are in the debate without making the assertions you seem to think they're making: what they can assert is what is and is not science. My understanding of the various creationist positions is that they essentially look to science to provide evidence confirming their faith, or deny any scientific findings that they find themselves unable to reconcile with their faith and demand that science be redefined to comply with their preconceptions. As for your "NATURAL CAUSES" point, there's a spectrum of religious beliefs which are compatible with acceptance of science and evolution, some of which believe that God established or controls natural laws. Do you have a difficulty with that? ... dave souza, talk 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and comprehensive reply. I'm sure glad I didn't venture to edit the article; you point out a lot that hasn't yet become clear to me.
I think several of the conflicts that "believing contributors" have at Wikipedia stem from failing to understand or appreciate the several points you've made. I'd like to see these matters clarified in articles. Of course I hesitate to create a stub article just to hash this all out; I'll probably create a user subpage first, and I'd welcome your help with it. It might not even wind up in the main namespace, but be more like a portal or WikiProject article. --Uncle Ed 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-TE bias

The article seems to be biased towards the theistic evolution position. Most of the quotes and examples are in support of TE, and the critique section could be expanded, IMO. I also noticed that the "Christian denominations" section only mentions two denominations specifically, I think that more are needed, especially denominations that are opposed/undecided on TE, for example Southern Baptists. I can't work on this at the moment, but it's something I might try to improve shortly.

BTW, this article could use some good images. --Puddleglum Marshwiggle 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "biased' is rather too strong a word - one would surely expect an article on theistic evolution to be principally devoted to explaining the TE position. The 'Critique' section has waxed and waned in size - check back through the Talk for discussion about this.
And images are always welcome - not an easy job to source images that meet WP's stringent requirements, though! -- Jmc 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I see very little evidence of bias in this article. Theistic evolution is inherently aligned with modern scientific evidence regarding evolutionary history - therefore, if one claims there is a TE bias present, one must also claim that science itself is biased in this instance - rather absurd, wouldn't you say? A theistic evolutionist generally cannot be seen as religiously biased due to the fact that he typically believes in natural processes utilized as the "tool" of some divine being - therefore he (to some degree) separates science and faith, which leaves him scarcely capable of incorporating bias into his belief system. In other words, belief in TE is belief in whatever the modern scientific consensus regarding evolution is - and that hardly seems to be a "biased" viewpoint by any standard.
Obviously the article needs to be fleshed out concerning other denominational views, as you mentioned, but it certainly can't be expected to cover every view on the subject - there are hundreds of "Christian" religious denominations in the United States alone, and few are in perfect alignment or agreement regarding the subject of TE. All one can hope to do is cover the major viewpoints present in the largest denominations - this is, after all, an encyclopedic article, not an exhaustively documented thesis.
- Kwub 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Puddleglum, this article is somewhat biased, it isn't from a neutral point of view. There is also lack of citation, and a logical fallacy(appeal to higher authority, famous person, Billy Graham) In example:
'This view is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholicism and most mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning holy scriptures. Even certain Biblical literalists accept this stance, including evangelist Billy Graham, who is also open to theistic evolution.'
I would like to see the survey results that say it is accepted by major Christian churches, other religious groups that 'lack a literalist stance', and I quote 'most mainline Protestant denominations'. It is a huge generalization to say that most Christians(literally millions upon millions[7])believe in TE. So yes, I would say that this article does not hold up against the Wikipedia rules about neutral point of view.
And my bias is: "I find it is in fact, easier to explain the world without TE, because of the complete lack of transitional fossils and species."
To address your comment Kwub, evolution is not a 'law' it is a theory. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional fossils, there is no chaos in the classification of species. Contrarily, the fossil record contains only specific, clearly defined species, and the species around us are not transitionary stages between each other, but rather each unique to his own kind. There is also not near enough dust on the moon for billions of years. No does uniformitarism apply to fossils, because there aren't fossils being created anymore, no evidence of the millions of buffalo that were slaughtered on the great plains, and no fish are actually fosilizing today...
Heehee, all writers have bias, but I think we need eliminate some bias in this document. I'm not saying we should put creationist bias in there either, I just hope we can make it a technical document, instead of a creative one. =D
Sincerely, Captain Vimes 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A reminder, we have discussed this in a variety of different contexts. The scientific consensus regarding the presence of transitionals and other forms of evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Theological criticisms of TE are obviously relevant, however, Wikipedia is not going to give undue weight to evolution-deniers. JoshuaZ 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Captain Vimes and fellow enthusiasts, for your elucidation and delight please see Level of support for evolution. You might also find it useful to read Talk:Evolution/FAQ with particular reference to the information there about Wikipedia policies. ... dave souza, talk 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Two points, Captain Vimes:
1) You say, "And my bias is: 'I find it is in fact, easier to explain the world without TE, because of the complete lack of transitional fossils and species.'" Please read the Wikipedia article on Transitional fossils. To quote, "It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature."
2) In any case, this TE discussion page is not the appropriate forum for discussion of that topic. As Kwub wrote above, "[B]elief in TE is belief in whatever the modern scientific consensus regarding evolution is". TE holds no distinctive view of the facts of evolution, so discussion of transitional fossils rightly belongs in the Transitional fossil discussion page.
-- Jmc 08:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In reference to your first point, I concur heartily and wish to add further emphasis to your statement. Words cannot begin to express my frustration with those who claim there are "no transitional fossils or species." Considering that this is the single most frequently used argument of creationists, I consider it a testament to the general ignorance and - dare I say - lunacy of the group as a whole. The abundance of transitional forms (both in the fossil record and currently living) could scarcely be any clearer. One must intentionally blind oneself not to see such blatant evidence in the world surrounding us - especially when one considers that humanity has witnessed the evolutionary process firsthand in the past century.
--Divinely indubitably, Kwub 18:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, Kwub. I have seen but a few examples of 'evidence' of evolution, most of which could just as easily be interpreted as a deformed human or ape, as it could be a transitionary stage. It is an assumption that they support evolution. A few sets of deformed creature's bones do not prove evolution. Also, the quotes you all gave me were from Wikipedia... which is full of biased documents, both evolutionist ones and creationist. It'd be like if I quoted you a Wiki document written by a creationist.
Also, Kwub, personal remarks have no place in a scientific debate. I quote you, Kwub;
"Considering that this is the single most frequently used argument of creationists, I consider it a testament to the general ignorance and - dare I say - lunacy of the group as a whole."
What survey says it is the most frequently used? Please cite your source. Insulting the other party in a debate does not give you any evidence, Kwub, it only starts 'flame wars'(http://en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/wiki/Flame_wars). Please don't lower yourself to those. =D
I see what you all mean about 'modern scientific consensus'. First of all; Where did you get that generalization? What survey? What right do you have to interpret the results of that survey that way, and how did you control the variables(assuming you do indeed have a survey to back you up? Contrarily, using majority belief is not evidence for your case. Popular belief means nothing, as it is not necessarily the truth. In example:
'The earth is the center of the universe', 'Flies originate in organic waste', and 'The world is flat' are all things scientists used to have consensus on. Not to mention that currently there is not consensus on which faith to choose, that everything originated from nothing(the big bang), or that God has been around for all of time. It takes faith to believe in either, and all scientists have a bias. Wikipedia did not exist in the beginning of the world, so it is quite impossible to quote it on this matter. It takes faith to believe how the world came into existence, since everything around us obviously originated somewhere. It makes it difficult for humans to think of something that didn't originate somewhere, something like God, or nothingness, that has been around for all of time.(Thus the Big Bang Theory, to create something from that nothingness) And what of time itself? Where did it come from?
I would challenge you to do more research, not only on the world around you, but also in your hearts. 1. People who only research their hearts find that there is much corruption there, and often become agnostics, ignoring their sin, and believing they will not have to answer for it.
2. People who only research the complex life around them often become evolutionists, ignoring the corruption in their hearts, believing they will not have to answer for it.
3. People who research the life around them, see that life is far too complex to have come about by chance(i.e. Monkeys will destroy Shakespeare at a faster rate than they write it, because randomness does more damage than help. The monkeys will never produce life no matter how long you give them), and also see the corruption in their own heart, realize they must answer for their sins, and often become creationists.
I understand your frustration Kwub, as many scientists are losing hope in the current evolutionary theory. Even many secular scientists have lost hope, and have thus have had to create the theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' (http://en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium). I suggest reading the book 'The Collapse of Evolution' by Scott M. Huse, for more information on evolution and it's increasing shortcomings.
I am talking on a higher plane of thought now, hypothetical and philosophical, if you cannot join me on this plane of thought PLEASE DO NOT twist my words to fit a lower plane of thought.
Sincerely, Captain Vimes 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Captain Vimes writes: "[M]any scientists are losing hope in the current evolutionary theory. Even many secular scientists have lost hope, and have thus have had to create the theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium'". Have you read the Wikipedia article that you cite, Captain? Nothing in there about "scientists … losing hope ". On the contrary, as it states: "[P]unctuated equilibrium … generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection."
-- Jmc 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No, my point is they had to change the original theory (slow evolution over millions of years) to leap evolution, instant changes, due to the lack of transitionary fossils.
And no, the document does not say "Many scientists have lost hope, and have thus have had to create the theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium'" Even if it did say that, what would be the point? Generalizations without surveys are not real evidence, just opinions. I was citing my own opinion.
Sincerely, Captain Vimes 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"To address your comment Kwub, evolution is not a 'law' it is a theory. There is no evidence in the fossil record of transitional fossils, there is no chaos in the classification of species. Contrarily, the fossil record contains only specific, clearly defined species, and the species around us are not transitionary stages between each other, but rather each unique to his own kind. There is also not near enough dust on the moon for billions of years. No does uniformitarism apply to fossils, because there aren't fossils being created anymore, no evidence of the millions of buffalo that were slaughtered on the great plains, and no fish are actually fosilizing today..." - Captain Vimes
I was previously under the impression that this was jocular sarcasm utilized to point out the stupidity of the young earth position. After reading your more recent post, I have realize to my shock that you were serious, which leaves me absolutely speechless and utterly confounded by your superior mental faculties. Pardon me for failing to conform to your biased viewpoint (based on the writings of a highly erroneous collection of ancient documents). What a fool I was to, instead, choose to place trust in the findings of 99% of modern geologists, geneticists, botanists, the scientific community as a whole, and Reason itself. I stand in awe at your divine ability to refute common sense based on groundless assertions of religious devotion.
In short, I am simply incapable of debating with someone of your mental faculty, someone on such a "higher plane" of intelligence above me, as it were. Clearly your word is obviously superior to that of experts on the subject, seeing as you have personally received divine revelation from an ancient, homicidal, sexist, sex-obsessed, rapist, homophobic, self-contradictory Jewish god. What a fool I was to attempt to bring the puny futility of Reason against such a powerful force.
--Divinely indubitably, Kwub 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kwub; I cannot continue to have a scientific debate against someone who refuses to be civil, or cite the sources for his opinion. You have clearly not read the Bible, or you would know who God truly is. Sincerely, Captain Vimes 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Captain Vimes and Kwub, you should not be having a scientific debate against someone here in the first place: this talk page must comply with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and debates which are not directly about proposed improvements to the article are liable to be deleted. The infobox added to the top of this page suggests more suitable places for such debate. .. dave souza, talk 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C.S. Lewis and evolution

Recently an anonymous person took off C.S. Lewis, I put him back on as a supporter of theistic evolution. These are his beliefs we can gather from the Acworth-Lewis correspondence. Another link to these can be found at the American Scientific Affiliation site. The Apologetics.org site is a pro-intelligent design / Christian apologetics site of the "C.S. Lewis Society" (Tom Woodward is the president):

Commentary from this site on the letters: "In his voluminous publications, C.S. Lewis infrequently addressed the subject of creation and evolution, and on such occasions he usually endorsed some version of theistic evolution."

Commentary from the site: "Acworth’s conviction of the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity no doubt prompted him to press Lewis for his views – and to attempt to recruit his pen and prestige in the protest against evolution. Lewis’s replies show that although he at first rebuffed Acworth’s overtures to endorse creationism, he was by 1951 inclined to agree with Acworth, in regarding evolution 'as the central and radical lie' governing modern civilization. However, he still remained unwilling to lend his name publicly to the antievolution crusade."

  • Lewis from Sept 23, 1944: "I believe that Man has fallen from the state of innocence in which he was created: I therefore disbelieve in any theory which contradicts this. It is not yet obvious to me that all theories of evolution do contradict it. When they do not, it is not my business to pronounce on their truth or falsehood."
  • Lewis from Dec 9, 1944: "I am not either attacking or defending Evolution. I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true. This is where you and I differ. Thinking as I do, I can’t help regarding your advice (that I henceforth include arguments against Evolution in all my Christian apologetics) as a temptation to fight the battle on what is really a false issue...."
  • Lewis from Sept 13, 1951: "I have read nearly the whole of Evolution [probably Acworth’s anti-evolution booklet 'The Lie of Evolution'] and am glad you sent it. I must confess it has shaken me: not in my belief in evolution, which was of the vaguest and most intermittent kind, but in my belief that the question was wholly unimportant. I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
  • Lewis from Oct 4, 1951: "I should lose much and you would gain almost nothing by my writing you a preface. No one who is in doubt about your views of Darwin would be impressed by testimony from me, who am known to be no scientist. Many who have been or are being moved towards Christianity by my books would be deterred by finding that I was connected with anti-Darwinism. I hope (but who knows himself!) that I would not allow myself to be influenced by this consideration if it were only my personal concerns as an author that were endangered. But the cause I stand for would be endangered too. When a man has become a popular Apologist he must watch his step. Everyone is on the look out for things that might discredit him. Sorry."

Commentary from the site: "There is no evidence that Lewis ever read the Genesis account of creation literally. Repeatedly and publicly he described it as a folk tale or myth. In The Problem of Pain, published in 1940, four years before his first surviving letter to Acworth, Lewis constructed his own 'myth' of human origins, which he described as 'an account of what may have been the historical fact.' Professing no objection to the notion that 'man is physically descended from animals,' he suggested that over time God 'perfected the animal form' that was to become the first man by endowing it with human consciousness. The resulting 'Paradisal man' engaged in full and unbroken communion with God while remaining, by our standards, a savage. Although he was as yet untainted by sin, his technology remained primitive. In joining an evolutionary picture of human biological development to the biblical account of the Fall, Lewis wished to demonstrate that the two views are not (as they seem to be) mutually exclusive."

That puts C.S. Lewis squarely in the "theistic evolution" camp, not the (biblical) "creationist" (or "intelligent design") camp. He had problems with some of the philosophical implications that some scientists and theologians (like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) draw, but so did the Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc. He did not take the early chapters of Genesis literally. PhilVaz 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Fact Tags added

The whole RCC section has not citations. (Runwiththewind 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Paul Davies reference

Orangemarlin reverted my edit which was a quotation from Paul Davies, the conclusion to his book the Mind of God which quotation appears under the entry to that book and which gives a different pov from Prof Davies. For completeness I will revert that so the text reappears unless Orangemarlin provides good reason why he deleted it.Backnumber1662 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why "However"? The quote you added is completely consistent with the statement already in the article, if a little off topic in that section, and does not appear to give a different POV. Have you a reliable secondary source supporting your interpretation of the quote? Without that, Orangemarlin clearly had good reason to revert your original research. .. dave souza, talk 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
the text as it currently stands is For example, the physicist Dr Paul Davies has stated: "I flatly reject the argument that the origin of life was some sort of miracle. To be sure, we don't yet know how it happened, but that doesn't mean a cosmic magician is needed to prod atoms around."
The addition I want is However Davies has also written, as the conclusion to his book The Mind of God 'Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.' . This seems to me to be quite contrary to the original position, for here he is saying there must be some mind, some purpose behind self awareness [ It is not a minor byproduct of mindless purposeless force] Why is giving a quotation that already appears elsewhere on Wikiepedia original research?
Comments are welcomed Backnumber1662 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have had none, I propose to reinstate the text if there are no other comments within the next 2 days Backnumber1662 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, belief in some mind, some purpose behind self awareness, is normal in theistic evolution, and your interpretation of the statement seems like original research. However, his book The Mind of God does suggest that he's a proponent of a version of theistic evolution: see this exerpt – "The Scientific Miracle" "Four hundred years ago science came into conflict with religion because it seemed to threaten Mankind's cozy place within a purpose-built cosmos designed by God. The revolution begun by Copernicus and finished by Darwin had the effect of marginalizing, even trivializing, human beings. People were no longer cast at the center of the great scheme, but were relegated to an incidental and seemingly pointless role... This existentialist ethos... has become the leitmotif of science. ... I shall present a completely different view of science. Far from exposing human beings as incidental products of blind physical forces, science suggests that the existence of conscious organisms is a fundamental feature of the universe. We have been written into the laws of nature in a deep and, I believe, meaningful way." So logically his statement is not that of a critic, but a proponent of a form of deism who opposes the creationist idea of a magician producing miracles that break God's laws... dave souza, talk 10:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Theistic heliocentrism"

If one is say, "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" as Kenneth R. Miller describes himself, what is the point of a qualified concept like "theistic" evolution, when one completely accepts the modern biological understanding of evolution? Would such a concept make any more sense than that of "theistic" heliocentrism — am I missing something here?

On the other hand, if a religious person is only partly accepting of evolution — and still makes allowance for the occasional miraculous intervention in biological affairs — surely that is a very different category of belief than that of someone like Dr. Miller, and is a category of belief that in my opinion should belong in a separate article.--Pharos (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On the first point, the need for the term has arisen because of the role that evolution plays in the debate between theism and atheism; heliocentrism is no longer a live issue outside the more extreme fringes of fundamentalism, and, when it _was_ a live issue 400 years ago, the religious debate wasn't between theism and atheism but over the authority of the Roman Catholic church. During that debate, "Catholic heliocentrism" might have been a useful label, admittedly, but those times have (fortunately) gone. On the second point, I believe the article you're looking for is Progressive creationism. Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Pharos, I think your point is answered in the introduction to the article: "Theistic evolution ... is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations."
In other words, theistic evolution embraces all views where the believer in God or gods accepts evolution, possibly with the proviso that God or gods can intervene directly in the process. It does not see that different categories of belief are involved. -- Jmc (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The most prevalent belief among Christians in the US is theistic evolution. So it deserves its own article. There is also a wide spectrum of beliefs, as can be seen at creationism, and they are divided into rough categories.--Filll (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
"possibly with the proviso that God or gods can intervene directly in the process" — this is a huge proviso from the point of view of biologists like Dr. Miller, in that it would (from their point of view) basically separate scientific beliefs from pseudoscientific beliefs.--Pharos (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. There's an important distinction between believing in the possibility of miracles (and indeed in their actual occurrence - I assume that Dr Miller, as a Catholic, believes in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, for instance), and propounding a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) that requires miracles, as do progressive creationists and the ID movement. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Pharos, here's another approach to answering your question as to whether there's any point in speaking of "theistic" evolution, when one (such as Kenneth R. Miller) completely accepts the modern biological understanding of evolution.
To frame the question another way, is there a difference for believers such as Miller between theistic evolution and non-theistic evolution? Yes, there is. For believers, evolution is a process which occurs as part of God's purposes (with views differing on God's means of directing the process); for non-believers, the context and process of evolution are entirely natural.
By the same token, it must make sense to speak of '"theistic" heliocentrism', in which believers see the movement of the heavenly bodies as ultimately ordained by God (or gods). But I leave someone else to write that article. -- Jmc (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
For centuries, people have tried to reconcile religion and science. Maimonides famously equated natural laws with angels, about 1000 years ago.--Filll (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
For the religious person, the whole world is a miracle. So, yes, there is a potential theology behind every natural process. But this article isn't really about the theology of evolution (which is an interesting topic in itself), but simply about people who choose not to reject a scientific theory based on their religious beliefs.--Pharos (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in some ways, the "everything is a miracle" and "nothing is a miracle" positions are almost identical from some viewpoints.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would like to thank everyone for their responses so far. But I think we have hit upon at least one really fundamental issue here: Do we actually have an authoritative source for the origin (who coined it?) and use (proper definition and scope) of the term theistic evolution? Is it in the OED, by the way?--Pharos (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


I am not sure who coined the term, but it is widely used in peer-reviewed publications. For example, papers on the taxonomy of creationism use this term.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration, here are a few that use "theistic evolution":

There are probably lots more. I wonder about Ronald L. Numbers publications; they might have some information about this.--Filll (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To get a rough idea of how many use this term, I did a google search (admittedly a lousy measure) and came up with over 90,000 hits. Lots and lots of evidence that this is a fairly common term in some quarters, at least.--Filll (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The index of Numbers' The Creationists has at least 30-40 entries for "Theistic Evolution". HrafnTalkStalk 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


The way I look at it, if someone claims that God created the species using evolution, that is theistic evolution (like the Roman Catholics and Anglicans, for example). If someone claims God did not use evolution to create the species, then that is probably another form of creationism (since some view theistic evolution as a belief on the "creationist spectum"). If someone claims that there was no God involved anywhere, since God does not exist, then this is atheism. If someone is not sure if God exists or not, this is agnosticism. If someone claims God was involved in other things but not in creating species, this is some other kind of belief that I have no name for (however, it is possible that one exists). If someone says that God set the entire thing in motion, including the laws that lead to evolution, but is not personally involved, this is close to Deism or a variety of Deism (the belief of many of the founders of the US like Thomas Jefferson and many others).

Discussions about where life came from are more complicated, since we have much less solid evidence for the origin of life (although we have some good hints for the natural processes involved).--Filll (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mormons

Do Mormons have a general position on evolution? I would have thought that they would be in favour of it, seeing as they believe that God evolved from mankind, but I have never heard anything. Epa101 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See - History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#The church and evolution and this page. As I understand it, the only relevant official doctrine of the LDS is the existence of a literal Adam (not necessarily a specially-created Adam); they don't take a view on the age of the Earth, the development of non-human life, etc. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in here a little late. There have been books published by the Apostles of the LDS church that do support some aspects of evolution. I would have to say, from what I've read, that natural selection is supported by the Church, but the theories of macroevolution are not. One example would be that a different translation of the Bible has to be made from the original Hebrew. In Genesis ch.1 v.5 it reads: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." The discrepancy is in the translation of "Day" (אוֹר) and "day" (אֶחָד). As you can see the spelling is different in Hebrew, and some biblical scholars have made the statement that the second "day" is better translated "extended period" or "age". 1 Though, this would present another dispute. As stated in macroevolution: "...the only difference between them [macro/micro evolution] is of time and scale," so again the idea of any type of evolution and doctrine can not coexist. I see the article wants to be expanded, but I'm not quite sure what type of research or additions people would like to see. Infonation101 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of content

An anonymous editor, editing behind a Tor proxy, has been trying to delete the paragraph which offers Young Earth Creationist views on theological evolution, citing WP:SELFPUB as grounds for removing the claim. This has already been discussed with multiple editors at Talk:Young Earth creationism, and the Tor-hopping IP editor resoundingly lost the debate. If there is anything to discuss, please do so here. silly rabbit (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

From the Verifiability policy:
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." This article is about "Theistic evolution", not Young Earth Creationism, hence a "source" promoting Young Earth Creationism, such as "Answers in Genesis", is unacceptable for this article, period. WP:SELFPUB doesn't even come into play in this case, because that deals with what type of material can be referenced from questionable sources in articles about themselves. 87.226.84.140 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Any more edits from a Tor proxy like 87.226.84.140 should be summarily reverted. You have been warned about this, and continue to edit Creationism-related articles in a disruptive fashion. I am reporting your latest IP address, but you will doubtless simply acquire another one. silly rabbit (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of making ad hominem attacks, why don't you address the actual issue? As this article is not about Young Earth Creationism, sources promoting it cannot be used in this article per WP:Verifiability. The relevant section is quoted above. 76.91.72.15 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, to "address the actual issue", as requested, the sentence in question ("Young Earth creationists criticise theistic evolution on theological grounds, regarding it as an unbiblical view of history and a capitulation to 'atheistic' naturalism") is simple reportage of the view of YECs on TE, and as such, totally legitimate content in this article, by any WP standard.
87.226.84.140/76.91.72.15 misunderstands the intent of the WP policies s/he quotes, which relate to the use of "questionable sources" for content asserted as fact. If, for example, the article were to state that TE cannot be true because the earth is less than 10000 years old and to cite YEC literature as verification, that would certainly be questionable. But to record that YECs hold certain beliefs about TE (just as atheists, agnostics and Anglicans do) is simply to carry out the encyclopedic charter of WP.
-- Jmc (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the policy. WP:Verifiability states that "Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves". But even in articles about themselves, their claims obviously could not be stated as fact (i.e. even in the Young Earth Creationism article, you couldn't state as fact that Earth is only 6,000 years old, no matter how many YEC sources you had.) The issue here is not how something is stated in a wikipedia article, but rather what sources are acceptable to cite where. This article is about "Theistic evolution", not Young Earth Creationism. Hence the article is not about sources like "Answers in Genesis", so Answers in Genesis can't be used as a source here. 77.56.109.198 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Any misunderstanding here is solely on the part of 77.56.109.198 aka 87.226.84.140 aka 76.91.72.15 aka 130.215.228.38 aka 77.57.162.63 aka 200.116.14.154 aka 75.121.153.232 aka 212.7.31.170 aka 87.237.58.98 aka 222.132.241.179.
In the context in question, there is simply no question of questionable sources. And that should be an end of the question. -- Jmc (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? It has been shown from Wikipedia policy that Answers in Genesis is not an acceptable source for the Theistic evolution article. If you have a problem with the policy, there are places you can take it up, such as the policy's talk page. 130.215.228.38 (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jmc: Please retract your inclusion of my name in your vandal sockpuppet list. And be careful when you accuse people in future.
Tor POINT vandal: I agree that this probably should be taken up at the policy page to make it clear that such sources can be used for their own views, and not just on their own pages, because that seems to be the only way to stop your little wikilawyering crusade, which I have now been falsely accused of taking part in. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Aunt Entropy: My sincere apologies. I misunderstood your edit of 05:45, 27 April 2008. I've removed your name from my list. I shall indeed check more carefully in future. -- Jmc (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)