| Part of a series of articles on |
| Intelligent design |
|---|
|
see: Watchmaker analogy
|
| Concepts |
| Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent designer Theistic science Neo-creationism |
| Intelligent design movement |
| Timeline Wedge strategy Politics Kitzmiller v. Dover |
| Campaigns |
| Critical Analysis of Evolution Teach the Controversy |
| Organisations |
| Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture ISCID |
| Reactions |
| Jewish · Roman Catholic Scientific organizations |
|
Book · Category · Portal |
Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism,[1] Augustinian science or Islamic science is the viewpoint that methodological naturalism should be replaced by a philosophy of science that is informed by supernatural revelation[2] and/or allows occasional supernatural explanations, particularly in topics that impact theology, for example evolution. The viewpoint is shunned by the mainstream science and religion movement.[3] Proponents of this viewpoint include J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Stephen C. Meyer[4] and Phillip E. Johnson.[1]
Contents |
After Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, Phillip E. Johnson became convinced that creationists had lost the case because in his opinion the methodological naturalism used by the scientific community in defining science does not include supernatural processes, and therefore unfairly excluded creationism. He concluded that creationists must therefore redefine science to restore the supernatural, and developed the wedge strategy.[5] The intelligent design movement began with the publication of Of Pandas and People in 1989,[6] and Johnson later became its de-facto leader.[5]
In an essay written in 1996, Johnson states that theistic realism (which he also refers to as 'mere creation') is "the defining concept" of the intelligent design movement.[7] Johnson presents theistic realism as a philosophical justification for intelligent design in his 1998 book, Reason in the Balance. According to Johnson, true knowledge begins with the acknowledgment of God as creator of the universe, the unifying characteristic of which is that it was created by God. Theistic realism relies on a concept of God which involves that He is real, personal, and acting in the world through mechanistic creationism.
Moreland describes theistic science as a research program that is "rooted in the idea that Christians ought to consult all they know or have reason to believe in forming and testing hypotheses, explaining things in science and evaluating the plausibility of various hypotheses, and among the things they should consult are propositions of theology (and philosophy)", and defines its two central propositions as:[4]
In a 1991 paper, Plantinga identifies theistic science with creation science:
`Unnatural Science', `Creation Science,' `Theistic Science' - call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by that methodological naturalism.[8]
Plantinga also refers to this concept as Augustinian science, and states that "in doing Augustinian science, you start by assuming the deliverances of the faith, employing them along with anything else you know in dealing with a given scientific problem or project." Plantinga argues for the acceptance of differing worldview-partisan sciences in place of a single common science.[2]
Plantinga employs a conflict thesis in assessing the relationship between religion and science. These views have been criticised by Christian physicist Howard J. Van Till, who rejects the conflict thesis, for relying on "folk exegesis" in his assessment of the bible's teachings on creation. Van Til argues that the problem is not evolution, but its misuse for "naturalistic apologetics".[9]
Philosopher and Roman Catholic priest Ernan McMullin also disagrees with Plantinga's call for a theistic science, stating that it should not be considered to be science at all, and suggesting that Plantinga seriously understates the evidential support for evolution.[10]
Similar ideas have been expressed by George M. Marsden and Mehdi Golshani (the latter referring to it as 'Islamic science').[11]