Talk:Theistic evolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I've now archived this page. Please don't add comments to it, as they might not be seen. Instead, please add new comments to Talk:Theistic evolution. Thank you. --G Rutter 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Random discussion

Theistic evolution, or the less common term, Evolutionary Creationism

If Evolutionary Creationism is the less common term, why is it the name of the article? Matt - 9/23/05

Theistic evolution is the position promoted by most major Christian churches, some Judaism denominations and other religious organizations that don't subscribe to a literalist position with regards to their scriptures.

If "most" major Christian churches promote this, then I wonder why I haven't heard about it yet. I've spent a lot of time talking with other Christians, reading Christian books and magazines, etc. How could I have missed this?

Is it a POV of some evolution advocates that "even lots of churches agree with us", or is it a FACT?

A list of churches whose theology is clearly compatible with evolution would be nice, or at least a few statements by religious leaders. --Uncle Ed 15:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Check the external link for one reference. You may not have heard about it under this name, but I'm a little surprised if you've not come across the concept. A list of churches would of course be better - it'd start with the Catholic Church. eg. Martin 00:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's not quite that straightforward. For example, my denomination officially has no problem with evolution, but there are still a lot of creationists among the rank-and-file believers. I presume the situation with other churches is similar. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:33, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Why EC over TE?

I believe the article should be titled Theistic Evolution, with Evolutionary Creationism as the alternative name. Theistic evolution is simply the term that is most commonly accepted, and in fact, I have not even heard of Evolutionary Creationism until the past year, and I am heavily involved in these discussions over a wide variety of forums. Even a quick check in Google will show which one is the one generally used. This is of course, assuming they are even the same thing, and of course, I'd prefer they be split. But if they must be together, I propose that Theistic Evolution should be the term used as Evolutionary Creationism itself is not very neutral and most people who hold this position would probably rather be lumped in the Evolution side of the debate than with the Creationist side as far as the scientific aspects go.

Furthermore, a lot of us feel there is a difference between Creation and CreationISM. Generally, us TEs will probably accept the following statement: We believe in Creation, we reject Creationism, and we accept evolution. If any other TE/ECs feel differently, feel free to respond.

Basically, the whole -ism makes it feel very non-NPOV, but then again, not having the -ism could be argued as non-NPOV by the Creationists as well. Dracil 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it appears this whole thing was a result of MyRedDice who created these two articles, but chose to make EC the main article while TE redirect to it. There is no real good basis for this (and I hope, I have offered enough to show why it should in fact, be reversed). Dracil 21:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

False info

Evolutionary biologists who were also theists

Although evolutionary biologists are often atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), there have been some who were theists too. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823 — 1913), who in 1858 jointly proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection with Charles Darwin, was a theist, though Darwin's views remain unclear. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900 — 1975), one of the of the modern evolutionary synthesis wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

Another architect of the synthesis, Ronald Fisher (1890 — 1962) was also a Christian. More recently Brown University Professor Kenneth R. Miller, author of many textbooks has written on the subject. [1]

Comments on individuals within this article

• Alfred Wallace did not "jointly propose" natural selection. Wallace first thought of natural selection in 1858 but Darwin had been working on natural selection for the past twenty years before then. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Wallace's first natural selection-related analysis was published in 1863.

• • Lyell and Hooker presented Wallace's essay, along with sections by Darwin to the Linnean Society of London in 1858, so the first public presentation was by both Darwin and Wallace. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Alfred Wallace was a spiritualist, not a creationist nor a theist. His spiritualism was also restricted to natural laws and negatively viewed the concept of miracles. Also, he "converted" to spiritualism around 1869 and became a socialist in 1889 after reading Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward.

• • On the Wikipedia article it states he believed that :" "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded at least three times in history: 1. The creation of life from inorganic matter. 2. The introduction of consciousness in the higher animals. 3. The generation of the above-mentioned faculties in mankind." I think this belief falls within the definition of evolutionary creationism. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1973 essay titled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution was a criticism of creationism and an espousal of evolutionary creationism.

• • Which is exactly what it says. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Ronald Fisher was not devout or dogmatic Christian. In fact, he opposed traditional Christian teachings. From his biography: His respect for tradition, and his conviction that all men are not equal, inclined him politically towards conservatism, and made him an outspoken and lasting opponent of Marxism. Although he did not subscribe to the dogmas of religion, he saw no reason to abandon the faith in which he had been brought up, and believed that the practice of religion was a salutary and humbling human activity. As he said in a broadcast on Science and Christianity (1955):

"The custom of making abstract dogmatic assertions is not, certainly, derived from the teaching of Jesus, but has been a widespread weakness among religious teachers in subsequent centuries. I do not think that the word for the Christian virtue of faith should be prostituted to mean the credulous acceptance of all such piously intended assertions. Much self-deception in the young believer is needed to convince himself that he knows that of which in reality he knows himself to be ignorant. That surely is hypocrisy, against which we have been most conspicuously warned."

• • But, nonetheless, it says "he saw no reason to abandon the faith in which he had been brought up", so, however unorthodox, he remained a believer in both God and evolution. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Views of Kenneth Miller

• Kenneth Miller is an opponent of intelligent design; thus, he's an opponent of creationism, however, he has written a single book on the religious implications of evolution titled Finding Darwin's God. Such a book is not, necessarily, an advocation of evolutionary creationism.

• • Not necessarily, but in extracts from the book here he states that "evolution is the key to understanding God" and that he believes in God (as well as evolution). I think it's therefore fair to characterise him as an evolutionary creationist. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moral of the story: if you're going to write an entry, check your facts before submission.

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure." -- Mark Twain

Adraeus 06:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was not the original author, but I have checked all the criticisms and I do not believe that any of the statements distorts the facts. I have now revised this section somewhat, but I've included much of what was written before, so have included specific rebuttals to all Adraeus' points directly below his points. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: split Theistic evolution from Evolutionary creationism

In my opinion it would be useful to separate the article on Theistic evolution and give it a different emphasis from the article on Evolutionary creationism, while acknowledging an overlap and linking the articles. At the moment links to Theistic evolution are redirected here, even though both links sometimes appear in the same article.

Given the association of Creationism with opposition to Darwinian natural selection, I'd suggest that the emphasis in Evolutionary creationism should be on those believing that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, while those who think of God as not intervening in species formation after initially creating life and/or setting up laws would appear under Theistic evolution. At present there doesn't seem to be a place for creationist positions like Richard Owen's "ordained continuous becoming" or Charles Lyell's episodic "centres of creation", and these could be added to the Evolutionary creationism article.

I agree that there is a significant difference between the two. At the moment, this article is still small, and there is some relationship between the two ideas. So for the moment I would suggest rewriting parts of this article to clarify the differences that you point out. Today I rewrote the introduction to begin clarifying this point. Please tell me what you think. Don't be afraid to offend me by rewriting my text, or totally disagreeing!

The article on Creationism says of Evolutionary creationism that " Many creationists would deny that this is creationism at all, and should rather be called theistic evolution, just as many scientists allow voice to their spiritual side.", but links these two different positions effectively to this same page. I'm happy to have a go at splitting these articles to overcome this anomaly, but would welcome comments before proceeding. .dave souza 19:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I understand these terms, the phrase Evolutionary creationism usually refers to the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. If most people who use this term hold that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, then this indeed should be noted as having the emphasis on Creationism, with evolution tacked on as a secondary concern. RK

I have been hearing the term theistic evolution used to describe the view that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held to be religiously correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. Is my understanding of this useage correct? (BTW Reinterpreting ancient texts to match the findings of modern day science and philosophy is not new. Many of the medieval religious rationalists, such as Maimonides, did just this.) RK 20:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there's much of a distinction between the two terms (at the moment I'd certainly be happy to use either to describe myself), though I'm very probably wrong! I'd be more convinced if we could find a few evolutionary creationists/theistic evolutionists claiming that they were one and not the other and why. The quote from the creationism page doesn't seem to draw a distinction between the two- except to try and make "theisitic evolution" somehow perjorative. Perhaps, rather, we need to go and fix the links? Surely any form of evolutionary creationism is an attempt to synthesize an understanding that God created the universe with a scientific understanding of how this occurred. Of course, there are different understandings of how this synthesis should be managed, but I'm still confused by the distinction you're trying to draw. Sorry, this is probably just me! --G Rutter 20:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the proposal that the term theistic evolution should be used of a belief that God started the process, then let it run itself, is that it cuts across the historic distinction between deism and theism. Both accept the notion of a creator God/god, but theism involves a belief in a God who continues to interact with his creation. If there has to be a distinction, I would propose that the theistic evolutionist be defined as the scientist who advocates a theistic model of evolution, while the evolutionary creationist is the person, scientist or not, who believes in this model. Do we need this distinction? The belief that God started the process, then left it to work itself out would be better called deistic evolution --- Cheers, Neil Copeland.

As per the request at Talk:Evolution, can I sugest the Creation continum at TalkOrigins.org. They say:

Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one. Schneider, Susan, 1984. Evolutionary creationism: Torah solves the problem of missing links. http://www.orot.com/ec.html

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980)

Joe D (t) 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are currently two conjectures which I am aware of that seek to weave evolution into their framework, both of which can be seen as reasonable or problematic, depending on your viewpoint:

1. The Day-Age Theory

States that the six-days of the Genesis creation are commonly misinterpreted to each be representations of longer timespans. (1 God day = millions of man years.) This can be countered with several tangibles which tend to prove that the earth is only around 6,000 years old. I suppose I'll just throw a few of these out: the oldest tree on earth is a bristlecone pine that is approximately 4,400 years old. The great barrier reef, dated by measuring the growth rate for twenty consecutive years, is less than 4,200 years old. The Coriolis Effect, which is proportional to the speed of the Earth's rotation, causes the prevailing wind currents -- with this in mind, the calculations from the expansions of the Sahara desert (appx 2 miles/year) show the desert to be about 4,000 years old. And lastly, Earth's declining magnetic field, measured in studies over the past 140 years, show that as few as 25,000 years ago, Earth would not have been able to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

1. The Gap Theory

Though there tend to be as many interpretations of this theory as there are theologians, the basic idea behind it is that there is a gap of an unknown length of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. (KJ) If you use this to tie in evolution with creation, you have quite a problem because death would bring man into the world. According to Genesis, man's sin brought death into the world, not the other way around.

If more examples are needed I would be much obliged. I believe both of these theories to be insufficient for supporting an agreement between creation and evolution. Aside from that argument, evolution has its issues as well. That is why the opinion in the intro to the evolution article is inappropriate and even deceptive. Please refer to the discussion archives to see the affinitive details of my position on this. Salva31 05:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, give it up. We simply do not care what you believe! We are only trying to describe evolution accurately, in accord with NPOV policy. And by the way, evolution does not "have its issues as well". That is mere fundamentalist propaganda, and very-well debunked propaganda at that. RK

Well, RK, your analysis is a little flawed. Many of the things used to support evolution in the past have been proven wrong. This process is continuing, and I guarantee you, one piece at a time, evolution is a religion masked as a science that is steadily crumbling away into history. If you do not believe me on this, I told you to refer to the archives. I am not propagandizing, nor am I a fundamentalist. You are not playing this game in a fair way by saying that. If you don't care, then that's fine, and I'm sorry that you choose to be so close minded. In this country, it is appropriate to display a reference article that talks about a theory, but frankly it is not right to target other supported theories using deceitful propaganda in the process. That comment is there because some people feel insecure about the ability of that article to convert readers to its belief system. You might as well stop telling me to go away; it only engages me further. Salva31 09:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I have never offered any analysis on the subject. The existence of biological evolution is a scientific fact that has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Further, none of the things that have supported evolution have been proven wrong. Please stop proselytizing us with your wildly anti-Scientific fairy tales. BTW, when you say "You might as well stop telling me to go away; it only engages me further." you clearly expose yourself as a troll, here for the sole purpose of disrupting our project. If you continue trolling you will be pulled before the ArbCom. So go ahead and try and insult us all that you want -it will only make your eventual ban come only sooner. RK

Joe D, thanks for reminding us about the Creation continum analysis at TalkOrigins.org. I had read that a while ago, but didn't even think about it when I wrote my question. Unless others have a reason to disagree, I think that we should go with their definitions. RK 02:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The continum is a propaganda device rather than a legitimate educational tool; the listing of tiny fringe minorities like flat earthers along with other creationists is an example of several propaganda techniques. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool and the minute fringe groups should be rimoved. A link to the propaganda site that proposes that grouping is more than sufficient.Pollinator 02:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Joe D, the Creation continuum analysis seems a good basis: noting that the continuum runs from Creation to Evolution, the tipping point between the opposing sides lies between Evolutionary creationism and Theistic evolution and this could support the case for separate articles: it may also be noted that many Christians, including Roman Catholics, come under the Theistic evolution definition, and so it seems wrong that they should be in an article with a creationist heading. Salva31, the analysis gives several more examples of theories. My question about Owen's and Lyell's theories is answered: they come under Progressive Creationism, a sub-set of Old Earth Creationists which doesn't seem to be covered in that article, so that's another task to tackle..dave souza 22:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you can imply that Roman Catholics are not Creationists. Catholics believe that God is intimately involved in Creation, whatever tool he used. Cutting a distinction between evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution is a bit ridiculous, but I think the first term is preferable, because it does emphasize that Catholics share much in common and should be grouped with other creationists.Pollinator 02:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pollinator. I think the definitions given by TalkOrigins are somewhat confused and are more concerned at establishing a continuum than accurately defining the terms they use. I think this is especially shown by the references they use- Schneider spends a lot of her article arguing that all Christian creationists are wrong because they don't use Jewish ways of interpreting the Torah.

TalkOrigins argues that the two positions differ only in their theology. It then does not explain these differences. Both definitions include God operating through evolution, with some aspects being outside modern science, eg the human soul/the first spiritually aware human. I also don't see how any sensible definition of Evolutionary Creationism can include accepting a "literal Genesis"- this is covered by Old Earth or Gap creationism.

I think that the reason there is two phrases to cover the same position is because some people want to use "Theistic Evolution" to avoid using the word "creationism", either becuase of the negative image that creationism might invokes or, if you're a creationist, to deny that Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism is an acceptable belief for a Christian to have.

Again, if anyone can provide other references that contradict my understanding I'm more than happy to have my mind changed! --G Rutter 08:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As there seems to be a fair consensus about keeping these two headings merged, I've had a go at revising links on other pages to reflect this, and have added a page on Progressive Creationism for clarification ..dave souza 12:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Took out the info that implied that majority of Christianity doesn't agree with Evolution; it does, as I expanded upon. Also added section on the Christian justification for Evolution, or rather the Christian justification for non-literal interpretation of Genesis. ..User:Apokryphos

Nice URL

Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary Creationism = Theistic Evolution

Hello, I'm new here. I made some edits to the theistic evolution entry, adding more folks besides Kenneth Miller, more material from St. Augustine and John Paul II on evolution and how they interpret Genesis. What was there was very good, but its richer in content now.

I suggest making either EC re-direct to TE or TE re-direct to EC. They appeared to be identical in content, and I didn't delete anyone's work, but added to it. I was accused of destroying the page here by making it re-direct to "theistic evolution" but the two pages appeared identical so I just re-directed.

Should there be two separate entries for EC and TE, or have the folks here decided they are one and the same concept? Maybe two different ways of saying "God used evolution as his main method of creation." That is my view. Evolution is a scientific fact, and God did it (somehow). Whether one calls that theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism doesn't matter to me, but the more well-known term seems to be "theistic evolution."

PhilVaz 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your edits and for pointing out the duplicate pages. You did the right thing in redirecting, just got it the wrong way round, as we'd already decided that we were going to keep it here! Thanks again- I hope that you keep up the good work! --G Rutter 20:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm pretty satisifed by the quality of the article here on evolutionary creationism. I added individual Wikipedia entries (with pictures) for Keith B. Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Fr. George Coyne, Darrel Falk, John Haught all of whom I was familiar with and have their books. Also one for the Pontifical Academy of Science. Nice job I must say.

However, entries need to be made for the following mentioned in the article, since I don't have their books and am not familiar enough with them:

• Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
• R.J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
• Keith Ward, author of God, Chance, and Necessity

The more evolutionary creationists we have the better. :)

PhilVaz 18:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The China Vase

The China Vase: What can science tell us about the china vase? It can measure: height, width, depth, volume, weight, mass, chemical composition, mathematical shape; it can hypothesize on a process of spinning a lump of clay, using tools and water to form it, pressure applied here and there to give it shape, a sequence of events that went into its creation, that it was dried, and glazed, and fired, how the firing process made it stronger, how its shiny surface transmits light. Science can tell us just about everything about the china vase. What it cannot do is tell us who made it. And so, for some reason, it abandons logic, it tosses aside Occum’s razor, and adopts the odd assumption that the china vase just happened. Phiddipus 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I was in the process of reverting this when someone beat me to it. This qualifies as original research unless you can find a source that states this argument. And if you do, it needs to be sourced and presented as their point of view. the idea that science "abandons logic" and asserts the vase "just happened" would make me wager that at least part of this is simply original research. FuelWagon 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic position

Cut a lot of confusing stuff

Not confusing it was perfectly acceptable as it was. I am VERY familiar with all the statements of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution, and I have a large (conservative) Catholic apologetics site online. I am also very sympathetic and very familiar with evangelical-fundamentalist Protestant criticisms of evolution, but believe them mistaken since their science is quite poor. I'm afraid your additions and deletions are not clarifying the Roman Catholic viewpoint on evolution. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[2] [3] In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in the papal encyclical Humani Generis, stated that the "Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" with the stipulations that souls are direct creations of God, and all true humans are descendants of a particular individual, Adam and Eve. Although couched in terms of caution, the encyclical is notable for its permitting the teaching of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis," and again concluded that "if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God." However, as John Paul II recognized in his October 22, 1996 Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "since the Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on [certain] conditions." Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996.

This contradicts Cardinal Schönborn's statement on evolution:

No it does not. First of all, Schonborn's "statement" was an editorial in the New York Times, which hardly compares with the authority of a papal encyclical. Schonborn is not the pope. And what do you mean by "this" -- I certainly hope you do not mean the Pius XII encyclical Humani Generis and John Paul II's 1996 statement to the PAS contradicts Benedict XVI or Cardinal Schonborn. They do not. And you haven't read Schonborn very closely. See below. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was 'more than just a hypothesis,' defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance -- or at least acquiescence -- of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith. But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." (from an editorial in the New York Times, 7 July 2005) (emphasis added for Wikipedia discussion)

Yes, I am familiar with his New York Times editorial. However, what Schonborn had it mind by "defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma" is atheistic evolutionists such as Julian Huxley, Will Provine, and Peter Atkins. In his first catechetical lecture from 2005/2006 on the creation-evolution topic, Cardinal Schonborn quotes them directly as follows:

Huxley from 1959: "In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure...." (Huxley)

Schonborn comments on the above: "I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences but rather the expression of a worldview. It is essentially a 'confession of faith' -- that faith being materialism." (Schonborn)

Provine from 1988: "Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable." (Provine)

Schonborn comments on the above: "This too is not a conclusion derived from natural science; it is a philosophical claim." (Schonborn)

Atkins from 1992: "Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired solely by sentiment." (Atkins)

Schonborn comments on the above: "Again, this is a 'confession of faith'; it is not a strictly scientific claim. These and similar statements could be heard this summer and are one reason that I said in my short article in the New York Times concerning this sort of 'border-crossings,' that they constitute ideology rather than science, a worldview." (Schonborn)

Is it becoming clear now what Cardinal Schonborn had it mind by "defenders of neo-Darwianian dogma?" He had in mind evolutionists who treated the biological theory of evolution as somehow supporting metaphysical naturalism, which is a philosophical claim, and constitutes ideology not science. It has nothing to do with the science of biological evolution or "common descent" as such. See Schonborn's first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006 available from St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna which I have linked. Schonborn clearly has no problem with theistic evolution, or "evolutionary creationism" as defined correctly in this Wikipedia article.

Schonborn has said: "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above (Huxley, Provine, Atkins above), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews." (2 October 2005, first Catechetical Lecture for 2005/2006)

That is Schonborn's true position, please do not misrepresent it. He simply wants to separate the philosophical claims (materialism, etc) from the science, but has no problem with biological evolution (or common descent) as such. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Schonborn distinctly says: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not." Is there any way to interpret this other than a DENIAL of the notion that the RC church accepts unguided evolution?

Yes there is. Of course it depends what you mean by unguided evolution. Metaphysical naturalism? Catholic Church is against that. That God is not the Creator of the universe? Catholic Church is against that. That God cannot intervene in nature? Yes, Catholic Church is against that. We believe in miracles. But what Cardinal Schonborn clearly had in mind were folks like Huxley, Provine, Atkins when they use evolution as a philosophical support for their atheism. Are we clear now? Theistic evolution vs. atheistic evolution.

In addition, the De Fide statements of the Catholic Church on creation are the following, and none of these are scientific claims, and the Church doesn't claim they are. They are theological positions. These are found in Denzinger or a book like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (pages 79-91)

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)

The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)

The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)

God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)

God has created a good world. (De Fide)

The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)

God alone created the world. (De Fide)

God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)

God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

I spell out in great detail what it is the Catholic Church accepts and defines on the creation and evolution issue here in response to young-earther Robert Sungenis. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And if "unguided evolution" *IS* evolution, then where does this leave us as encyclopedia editors? Uncle Ed 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are you Ed? Are you Roman Catholic? I appreciate the participation, but please read all that the Roman Catholic Church has written on the evolution topic and represent it accurately. Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creationism") as defined in this Wikipedia article is the clear position of John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, and Schonborn. The longest sustained explanation of the creation-evolution-design position within the Roman Catholic Church is found in the International Theological Commission statement from July 2004, endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI). Paragraphs 62-70 are quite clear that God the Creator and Primary Cause, works through natural, secondary causes like evolution. Here is paragraph 63 on what the Catholic Church accepts as science:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution." (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

That's about all I need to say. The Catholic Church, John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, Cardinal Schonborn etc have no problems with this science above.

PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've restored Ed's mass deletion, as Schonborn does not speak canonically for the Catholic Church on this topic, and his statements do not by measure supercede a papal proclaimation like that of Pope John Paul II's. Furthermore, the RCC has taught for over 40 years that evolution as process is entirely consistent with the catechism. Cardinal Poupard contradicts Schonborn here: [4] FeloniousMonk 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It leaves us to clearly explain in a NPOV manner. By the way, a few million Eastern Orthodox Christians would be rather hurt at the idea that their position is determined by a Roman Catholic Cardinal. I've changed unguided evolution from a redirect to clarify matters....dave souza 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Schonborn set off the rippling controversy last month with an opinion piece in the New York Times that stated evolution proponents had wrongly claimed that the writings of Pope John Paul II say evolution is compatible with church teachings.

Although the essay was not submitted on behalf of the Vatican, Schonborn told the Times that he had discussed it with Pope Benedict XVI shortly before then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in April. [5]

So who is more believable:

1. "evolution proponents" who claimed that the writings of Pope John Paul II say evolution is compatible with church teachings; or,
2. a prominent Roman Catholic cardinal who says that these proponents "wrongly claimed" this?

I think Wikipedia should indicate that there is a controversy here. Uncle Ed 16:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not indicate there is a controversy. Just as in biology itself, there is no controversy on this subject within the Catholic Church. John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, and Schonborn have clarified their positions on evolution, and that is theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) or a God-guided evolution. God works through natural, secondary causes, and common descent is "virtually certain" and this is compatible with God's Providence, according to the Church's best theologians on the subject.

Further, what is Cardinal Schonborn's opinion of Charles Darwin and Origin of Species? Here it is:

"With this, his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history's most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the 'evolution' paradigm has become, so to speak, a "master key," extending itself within many fields of knowledge." (from the same first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006)PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of discussion please?

I havn't been paying attention, but I see some of my favorite editors are here. (no sarcasm intend I assure you) Can someone tell me what the flap here is? As I understand it, evolutionary creationists accept science all the way to x^n-1, and then say "And then god pushed the whole thing into motion with a specific Plan/Design/Purpose. Secular science kinda shrugs and goes. "I dunno. We can prove that it started, we can't prove that there was a grand reason, we can't prove it doesn't, that isn't our job." Evolutionary creationism is essentially a fancy way of saying "God was involved in a way that doesn't contradict scientific evidence, but it is a belief of faith outside the bounds of the scientific method." So I understand it anyway. So whats the flap?--Tznkai 17:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The flap is over whether "evolution" means (1) only that life gradually appeared or (2) that life appeared gradually and that God had nothing to do with this. Cut from article: "Although couched in terms of caution, the encyclical is notable for its permitting the teaching of evolution." This sentence can be construed as true or false, depending on what the writer means by "teaching evolution". Uncle Ed 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Ed. There is no controversy on this in the Catholic Church. The idea "God had nothing to do with" life is obviously not the Catholic position since we believe God is the Creator. Until the 17th century or so, all scientists were young-earth creationists. Since the early 19th century at least, we've recognized geology and biology do tell us much about where we come from physically. To quote Benedict XVI in a commentary on Genesis he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger: "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities." (Cardinal Ratzinger, In The Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, 1986, repub 1995). That is the current Pope's position, and the position of Cardinal Schonborn. The position of the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution has been clear since Pius XII (1950s). God is the Creator, and God created by evolution. Sure God could intervene any time he wanted, but those interventions (called miracles) are not detectable by scientific means. PhilVaz 17:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If there is no controversy, why does the article say that Schonborn's view is contradicted by two other Catholic leaders?

Spin off Christian views on evolutionary creationism

There's too much information on Christian views, pro and con, for this article. And the bullet point formatting makes it hard to read.

Those interested in what religious people have to say about Evolution - particularly as it relates to the US creation-evolution debate, will be better served with a spin-off. Wikipedia:Content forking provides guidelines on how to do this. Uncle Ed 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is enough material for a spin-off in this instance. In particular, I'm not sure what the difference between the Christian views on this subject and the subject itself are since this subject is basically defined by Christians. Do you have a particular reference you are working from? --ScienceApologist 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be very interested to hear about all those atheist Creationists out there. *eye-roll* -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Whys is this called creationism?

Why is this part of the series on creationism? Theistic Evolution is essentially normal evolution, only with God. It's unfair to call it creationism, since Creationism is a loaded word, and saying Theistic evolution is creationism gives off the wrong impression.bob bobato (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but to be consistent, we'd also have to remove TE from the template (template:Creationism2). I have raised the issue on that template's talk page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It used to have both the Creationism and the Evolution template. I don't really know why the latter is gone now. Farsight001 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Was Gray a theistic evolutionist?

Both the mention of Gray in The Creationists (Expanded Ed. p35, where he and his protege George Frederick Wright are mentioned fashioning a "right evolutionary teleology") and in his article (where he is mentioned "attempt[ing] to convince Darwin in these letters that design was inherent in all forms of life"), gives the impression that Gray was closer to being a precursor to an ID-advocate than a TEer. Do we have a reliable source (not a piece of self-published creationist fluff) linking Gray to this viewpoint? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Mark Noll [6], Gray's belief was in divine design manifested in providence, not intervention. ~ Serapio (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Flew a 'Deistic Evolutionist'? Is he prominently one?

Flew's views appear to be (i) muddled & (ii) closer to ID than to TE. Should he be included in the Deism section? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what's being asked here. Do you mean removing mention of Flew from the Intelligent Design article altogether (he already appears under "deism" in that article)? And when you suggest he's "muddled" do you mean with respect to the use of the terms "theist"" and "deist"? If so, I take objection to both suggestions on the following basis; In the review of There is a God by philosopher Gary Habermas [[7]] it is pointed out that Flew prefers "deist" to "theist" but avoids the former because of its unfamiliarity (see particularly the discussion - in the main body and footnote - associated with footnote 7 [[8]]). See also the article cited by Habermas: Antony Flew and Gary Habermas, "My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas," Philosophia Christi 6 (2004): 197 - 211. It's clear that the question of design was very influential in Flew's "conversion" to deism and that positions himself somewhere in the overlap between deism and intelligent design (not mutually exclusive categories). My apologies if I have not properly understood your objection and therefore offered an irrelevant response. Muzhogg (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

1. "It's unclear to me what's being asked here." I would suggest that this appears to be a result of failure to read what I wrote carefully.
2. "Do you mean removing mention of Flew from the Intelligent Design article altogether" Am I discussing this on Talk:Intelligent Design? No. Am I suggesting that Flew's views are unrelated to ID? No (quite the opposite). Then you can reasonably be assured that I am not discussing removal on that article (where they are not mentioned in any case). Am I suggesting removing them from this article "altogether"? Yes -- see #4 below.
3. Have I made any comment or argument about Theism vs Deism? No.
4. My argument was that Flew's views (in the Deism section of this article) appear to place him closer to ID than Theistic/Deistic Evolution, and muddy that differentiation -- making it (i) unclear that he is in fact a T/DE & (ii) making him a poor example of the Deistic view of TE, regardless.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see what you're getting at - the original point was obvious in retrospect but thanks for your patience in working through your thinking. My response is that one should be guided by the article's own definition of Theistic Evolution (methodological naturalism is considered a defining attribute) and Deism (that the deity does not 'interfere with the world or create miracles') and categorize Flew on that basis. I think there sufficient ambiguity on both points to merit raising the question you have, but unless it can be shown that Flew (1) rejects methodological naturalism; or (2) argues for something like a "miraculous" creation of an initial cell; then I think he should remain under deism Muzhogg (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that the reason that Flew has given for his conversion from Atheism to some version of Deism is an argument from design-style rejection of of the efficacy of a purely naturalistic/scientific explanation of the existence of life-as-we-know it. The exact contents of his belief system, and particularly whether it meets the strict definition of 'Deism' (as his position appear to imply some interference after the creation of the universe, to ensure that life-as-we-know-it came about), or even if it is coherent, is (I think) beside the point. I disagree with your argument for continued inclusion -- given that Flew is neither an unambiguous example of a Deistic Evolutionist, nor famous for his advocacy of such a position, nor appears to self-identify with that label (it appears to be a WP:SYNTH inference, rather than an explicit avowal from Flew himself). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice point - it reverses my previous thinking regarding inclusion. My only objection is that I think the article's definitions are highly relevant as they surely have to be the defining criteria for how Flew is dealt with in the article itself (please note that I'm not trying to turn this into an argument over semantics, just trying to clarify criteria of assessment). Taking such criteria into account, there is clearly little or no ambiguity regarding Flews association with ID whilst his association with Deism requires clarification. I would suggest that to justify inclusion under "Deism" Flew would have to be shown, with a high degree of certainty, to (1) accept methodological naturalism; and (2) self-identify as a deist. Otherwise he would be more appropriately called an ID advocate with deistic leanings. Let me just add that if (1) and (2) were shown, the likely point of discussion would fall on the nature of "intelligence" in Flew's thought. As he seems to think that the universe itself is made up of "mind-stuff" (George Wald, cited in There is a God p.131) his view of deity would be something like Spinoza's and I would then argue that he is best classified as a "deist with ID leanings". I only mention it to make clear what I think are the concrete criteria for any other person wishing to argue for inclusion under "deism". I obviously recognize the possiblity of future disambiguation and so leave the question somewhat open but as it stands, I support Hrafn's call to relocate Flew under ID rather than Deism given the current article description of his position. Muzhogg (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

The lead currently states:

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with much or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. [emphasis added]

However, the clearest articulation of a definition of TE I could find among the sources states:

Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology.[9]

Do we have a source stating that acceptance, that is only partial ("much … of"), of "the modern scientific understanding", still falls within TE? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I deleted the first two criticisms because they are criticizing the wrong view. Most "Theistic Evolutionists" also do not posit God in evolution, that is "Intelligent Design". That God created life is a question of abiogenesis, not evolution. Theistic Evolution is simply the belief that natural evolution is not only true, but compatible with faith in God or belief in religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacr1fyce (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. New threads belong at the bottom of talkpages.
2. You need to provide clearer and more detailed reasoning for removal of sourced material -- hence my revert.
3. As the Skeptic's Dictionary source was explicitly on ID not TE, I've re-removed that.
4. Dawkins is clearly talking about theism more generally (it's outlining a chapter on 'Why there almost certainly is no God') -- so would appear to be relevant.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia newb. I will try to make a clear argument.

Theistic evolution is simply the belief that religion and evolutionary science are compatible. Intelligent design is the belief that the universe, abiogenesis (origin of life), and evolution are too complex to have occurred naturally and therefore posits an intelligent designer (i.e. God).

Most theistic evolutionists do not believe intelligent design occurs in evolution. They believe God exists, but evolution still occurs naturally. There are a few that accept both theistic evolution and intelligent design. Whatever the case, the point is that theistic evolution and intelligent design are two independent subjects.

I do not believe the criticisms to be valid because they are confusing the subjects. They criticize intelligent design, not theistic evolution. Furthermore, the quote from Paul Davies is not only about intelligent design, it also about the origin of life. Theistic Evolution is about evolution, not abiogenesis. Origin science and evolutionary science are also two different subjects that are often muddled.

The only potentially valid criticism is the very first sentence in which theistic evolutionists believe in God, which is a waste of time to someone that believes in naturalism.

Regarding Hrafn's point number 4 above; The cited chapter from Dawkins' book does criticize theism generally, but the quoted critique is specifically about "design in the living world." Critiques of design in the living world (aka Intelligent Design), would be more relevant on the Intelligent Design page. If you disagree and choose to revert my deletion of this criticism, please cite a references that explains how "design in the living world" is a claim made by Theistic evolutionists.

After deleting the Dawkins argument, I amended the Occam's razor critique so that it would be directed specifically at ET, rather than ID. To be fair, I noted the obvious response made by ET regarding Occam's razor. cheers (Isaac.holeman (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

You need a reliable source to verify the contents of material you wish to add to an article. Also see WP:NOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dawkins quote is directed at Intelligent Design (literally "design in the living world"), so the burden lies on you to either provide a reliable source to verify it's relevance to theistic evolution, or allow the quote to be removed from this article.

To be more specific... one cannot use Occam's razor to determine whether a theory makes unnecessary assumptions. One must first decide whether a theory makes unfruitful assumptions, and then one may apply Occam's razor to argue that unfruitful assumptions make the theory less probable. Dawkins argues that it is unnecessary and unfruitful to assume a design process other than natural selection in the living world. He then applies Occam's razor to agrue that theories which make this assumption are less valid. Theistic evolution does not assume a design process other than natural selection, so unless you can quote Dawkins as using the words "theistic evolution" in his critique, you should not assume that he (mistakenly) applied Occam's razor to TE.

The only source cited in this section uses Occam's razor to critique ID, so there is no verified argument regarding Occam's razor and TE. We can either choose to delete the Occam's razor critique, or adapt it so that it makes sense in the context of TE while we wait for someone to find a reliable source. I'd prefer to adapt it as such, but I'm open to feedback.

"The major criticism of theistic evolution focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator. This critique argues that theistic evolution is less valid than evolution by natural selection sans a supernatural creator because, according to Occam's razor, the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the theory.

Theistic evolutionists counter that assuming the absence of a supernatural creator is equal and opposite to assuming the existence of a supernatural creator. Given that neither assumption makes a difference in the observable predictions of the theory of evolution, Occam's razor may not support either assumption."

cheers (Isaac.holeman (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Isaac.holeman: "Theistic evolutionists counter that assuming the absence of a supernatural creator is equal and opposite to assuming the existence of a supernatural creator." Really!? Where? -- Jmc (talk)

Jmc The logic comes from conversations with professors; if I had a print source I'd cite it. Careful scientific thinking avoids assumptions, and referring to an absence of evidence as evidence of absence is a major assumption. Apparently this logic is difficult/controversial though, so I'll just leave it out of the article. Going to go ahead and delete Dawkin's critique of Intelligent Design though.

cheers

(Isaac.holeman (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

I've reverted Isaac.holeman's latest edits to an earlier version by Hrafn. Isaac.holeman's edits served to obscure the sense, added POV material ('renowned', 'militant'), and had gained no consensus here. -- Jmc (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the POV issues: That Richard Dawkins is renowned is beyond question, it is fact. His books in evolutionary biology and popular science have been read by millions. The Richard Dawkins wikipedia article documents this thoroughly (using the term "preeminence"). As for calling him a millitant atheist - I was quoting Dawkins himself in the video I cited (here, again ). Does quoting someone's self description count as non-neutral POV (I'm really asking, I'm no wiki expert).

Regarding obscuring the "sense." If that term has a meaning specific to wikipedia, could someone help me find it? If you just meant that I changed the meaning, I didn't. The current version should be improved though because the following sentence reveals a misunderstanding of Occam's razor: "These proponents claim that by the application of Occam's razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by the principle of natural selection, and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required." This sentence implies that it is Occam's razor (a principle well established in scientific thinking) which reveals the (slightly more contentious) conclusion that biological observations are explicable without a supernatural entity.

In contrast, the appropriate process for applying Occam's razor is as follows. 1. Decide that a theory makes unnecessary assumptions 2. Apply Occam's razor to argue that the theory in question is less valid.

Occam's razor cannot be used to determine whether a theory makes unnecessary assumptions. It is the principle of reasoning that can be applied after one has made such a determination. If my version of the critique was confusing, perhaps that is because Occam's razor is a complex tool. My words were more precise than poetic. For the sake of expediency, I humbly propose the following as the smallest possible change that would correct the use of Occam's razor:

"These proponents claim that sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by the principle of natural selection, and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required to explain biological observations. According to Occam's razor, theories should make as few assumptions as possible, thus assuming the existence of a supernatural may be less valid than not assuming the existence of any such creator. Thus Richard Dawkins argues that theistic evolution is a superfluous attempt to "smuggle God in by the back door"."

I'm very open to alternatives and committed to consensus around something more articulate than the current draft. I would like to describe Dawkins as renowned and a millitant atheist, unless someone can explain how the fact and the self description raise POV issues. This still doesn't change the fact that it's a straw man argument that Dawkins inappropriately directed at theistic evolution (instead of Intelligent Design), but that's his mistake not ours, and I guess we can't comment on it until we find a published rebuttal.

References

--(Isaac.holeman (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

I believe Isaac.holeman has an imperfect understanding of Occam's razor. To quote WP: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question [my italicising]. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood." And it's in this sense that this article says that "by the application of Occam's razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by the principle of natural selection, and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required." -- Jmc (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Jmc's quote and explanation of Occam's razor is accurate, but the critique on the TE page is still worded inappropriately. To quote the same WP passage as Jmc with my own italicising: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question." In more precise terms, this means "The principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that has been determined (by someone other than Occam) to introduce the fewest assumptions." It does not say "The principle explains which hypothesis introduces the fewest assumptions, and encourages selection of that hypothesis." The first determination, that a theory introduces unnecessary assumptions must be made without the aid or authority of Occam's razor. The validity of the conclusion depends first on the validity of the claim that unnecessary assumptions were made, and secondarily on the strength of Occam's razor (which holds that the unnecessary assumptions are bad).

The current critique: "by the application of Occam's razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by the principle of natural selection" indicates that Occam's razor has told us that natural selection sans a supernatural creator makes fewer assumptions than natural selection with a supernatural creator. In reality, the conclusion was reached by a human, by the critic Dawkins. Once Dawkins reached this conclusion regarding unnecessary assumptions, he then invoked Occam's razor. It is relevant because the current wording suggests Dawkins was arguing that theistic evolution is inimical to Occam's razor, that the principle itself disproves TE, but this is certainly not what Dawkins meant because to any scientist who actually invokes Occam's razor in the course of their work, it is obvious that you must make the determination of unnecessary assumptions yourself.

(Isaac.holeman (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

I italicised "postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question" because the criticism here relates to an additional entity postulated by TE, namely a supernatural creator, which Occam's razor peels away. -- Jmc (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying Occam's razor peels away the postulated entity again (inappropriately) anthropomorphizes the impartial principle, suggesting that it is the principle which takes action or makes judgment. It must be clear that the argument of whether an unnecessary entity has been postulated is not the same as the argument made by Occam's razor, (that such theories are less plausible). The two arguments must come sequentially, work in tandem, the critique should not imply that they are one and the same. Perhaps this attempt will reach consensus?:

"One criticism of theistic evolution focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator. These critics argue that a supernatural entity is not necessary to explain evolution, that sufficient explanation is provided by the principle of natural selection. By the application of Occam's razor, theistic evolution is less plausible than other theories insofar as it postulates entities that are not necessary to explain scientific observations. In the words of Richard Dawkins, theistic evolution is a superfluous attempt to 'smuggle God in by the back door'".

TE is not a scientific theory. It is a view that sees theism compatible with naturalistic evolution. People who believe in theism generally do so because of non-scientific reasons. TE would only be guilty "smuggl[ing] God in the back door" if it were a scientific argument. It isn't. Therefore Dawkins is wrong, and TE is not subject to Occam's Razor. 98.215.66.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC).

If there is no consensus with this version, please consider making revisions or explaining specifically what you find unacceptable about this version. cheers (Isaac.holeman (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

I think it is muddling things to call "belief in a supernatural creator" an "essential belief", as the atheistic contention is precisely that this belief is inessential. "Core belief" would probably be better. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn I think the intention was that the belief is essential to the theory (not essential objectively), but I agree with you that "core belief" would be more clear here. Let's change that part.

Isaac.holeman: "Saying Occam's razor peels away the postulated entity again (inappropriately) anthropomorphizes the impartial principle". No more so than calling a heuristic principle a "razor". -- Jmc (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Jmc: Anthropomorphizing is attributing human qualities (such as agency or ability to make decisions) to inanimate objects. The razor is an inanimate tool that Occam uses (as he uses heuristic principles). Saying Occam's razor determines something is anthropomorphizing because you assign the ability to make decisions to the inanimate razor. Calling the heuristic principle a razor is not anthropomorphizing because you are comparing an inanimate entity (the heuristic principle) to another inanimate entity (a razor).

The goal is to improve the above version until we can all agree on. Can you agree with the last version I proposed, after replacing "essential" with "core"? Do you have other suggestions? (Isaac.holeman (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

"Occam's razor peels away the postulated entity" is anthropomorphic in a way that calling a heuristic principle a "razor" is not? Really?! This is mere hair-splitting, as are the rest of Isaac.holeman's criticisms of 'Criticism'. -- Jmc (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn: "I think it is muddling things to call 'belief in a supernatural creator' an 'essential belief', as the atheistic contention is precisely that this belief is inessential. 'Core belief' would probably be better." Since "essential belief" is qualified by "its" and so refers to belief in a supernatural creator as an essential belief of theistic evolution (and not an unqualified essential belief), then I think the phrase should stand. The next sentence makes it clear it's non-theistic evolutionists who regard this belief as superfluous. -- Jmc (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User Hfran just removed the following from the criticism section, noting that Wikipedia is not a valid source.

"It is noteworthy that this criticism assumes that evolution is the primary or only phenomenon a theistic world view attempts to explain, which may be the case for some proponents of theistic evolution, but is not the case for many others, such as Francis Collins."

I have re-added the sentence, instead citing Francis Collin's book "The Language of God" directly.

"This criticism is directed specifically at theistic evolutionists who believe that evolution is the primary phenomenon a theistic world view attempts to explain. This use of Occam's razor does not apply to the theistic evolutionists who argue that theism is needed to explain other phenomena, such as the big bang, more than it is needed to explain evolution.

References

-- (Isaac.holeman (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

1. Please don't use <ref></ref>-tags in talk.
2. It was a crappy citation -- the Google stuff is irrelevant as Google-books doesn't give access to the chapter in question, and a chapter-long citation is too vague to allow reasonable verification. I have therefore requested quotes verifying this material.
3. "…phenomena that natural selection does not explain, such as the big bang" is a silly argument (at least as currently presented). Natural selection is a biological phenomenon, so of course it doesn't explain anything whatsoever in astrophysics! It would be as reasonable to expect Ohm's law to explain osmosis. It badly requires a reword. I would therefore be surprised if it is an acurate representation of Collins' writing (see #2 above).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Sorry for using <ref></ref>-tags in talk, I was unaware that i was inappropriate.
2. Nothing in the wikipedia guidelines suggests that a source must be freely accessible on the Internet in order for it to be a valid source. Google books is clearly just a means of finding the book itself and the proper chapter, which you may just have to purchase and read if you wish to claim that others have cited it inaccurately. The thesis of the entire chapter is directly relevant to this criticism, and it is inappropriate to quote at length a "pro" argument in the "criticism" section, so unless there is a specific wikipedia guideline stating that only specific sentences, not entire papers or chapters may be cited, the citation should stand.
3. It is not a silly argument, but I'm afraid user Hfran will not understand it until you understand that there is a difference between intelligent design and theistic evolution. I will try to expand the "relationship with intelligent design" section before I re-add the relevant context to Dawkin's critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac.holeman (talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It's inappropriate because talkpages generally lack a {{Reflist}} template to allow their contents to be viewed without editing the page.
2. Google books is clearly superfluous under the circumstances. As to specificity, WP:V states "that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". This implies that the citation is given with sufficient specificity that such a check is practical. Expecting a reader to trawl through an entire chapter and guess where the material is being drwn from is unreasonable.
3. It is a completely idiotic argument. No reasonable person would expect a theory within biology to explain a phenomenon within astrophysics. The doctrine of immaculate conception does not explain why grass grows, the Gauss-Markov theorem doesn't explain why the sky is blue, etc, etc, et cetera. No conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from these failures, or natural selection's, to explain phenomena in completely unrelated fields. If you want to demonstrate that this is Collins' completely idiotic argument, and thus a reasonable issue for discussion, not Isaac.holeman's WP:OR or misreading, then you need to quote where Collins makes it.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn has my support. This article is purely about theistic evolution, not "a theistic world view", which is the subject of Isaac.holeman's addition. Isaac.holeman is attempting to smuggle in an extraneous and irrelevant POV. -- Jmc (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation Confirmation?

I'm a Wikipedia newb but I thought it odd that the link for the following book in the "Books" section is not traceable online. Is this a real book? There is no ISBN and the link to John M. Page is invalid. I cannot find reference to this individual online or for his book. This seems very odd and I would not want it to be a case where a fictitious book was posted. After all, it does sound intruiging for likely a fair amount of people. Book noted below. Does it truly exist?

Page, John M.; (2009) The Genesis Code: An Inquiry Into The Possibility Of A Link Between Creation And Evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.187.163 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. Worldcat was down when I checked it, but neither Google nor Google Books could find anything outside WP on it (which, given that it is purported to be a 2009 book, tends to support non-existence). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Please refer to this discussion over at Talk:Catholic Church and science. The question is: Why does Evolution and the Catholic Church assert that Catholic doctrine is a non-specific form of Theistic evolution while Theistic evolution asserts that Catholic schools do not teach theistic evolution? --Richard S (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design/theistic evolution

Can someone please explain what the difference between the two are? From what I read, these are almost exactly the same; ID is open to evolution being a process created by God, and TE believes evolution is a process created by God. And please, no derogatory comments. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's one way of characterising the difference. Intelligent design attributes the design to an intelligent cause (withour specifying the nature or identity of the designer), not to a natural process such as natural selection; theistic evolution accepts evolution by natural selection as a natural process ordained by an identified being, namely God. (Maybe we could incorporate this in the article itself?)

A careful read of the Intelligent design article should also help to clarify the difference; to quote: "Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory" [my emphasis].

-- Jmc (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So, the difference is basically ID wants to redefine science? That makes sense; thanks for telling me. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hidden comment from article

Q: this needs clarification. is it a general spiritual/religious belief separate from the usual Judeo-Christian & Islamic views? User:Rursus agrees: this needs clarification. It is in fact a creationist stance.

1. EC (like TE) isn't a 'separate belief', but a viewpoint harmonising science with a pre-existing theistic belief.
2. EC is not "in fact a creationist stance." (See Scott citation in article)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what the hidden statement questioned. The hidden statement questioned that the formulation was in disaccord with TE (= EC), by expressing a creationist stance. By TE we mean the full acceptance of evolution as a scientific model, and its harmony with religious belief. The topic is however obsolete from the intro being reformulated. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unpleasant intro

The intro provides unpleasant amateur philosophy:

In short, theistic evolutionists believe that:

1. ...then... 2. ...then... 2.a. ...then... 2.b. ...then... 2.b.1. ...then 2.b.2.

(† Note, 2a and 2b2 infer ...blablabla...)

Noo! That's not in short! That's nonsense! Please provide a source to such an unnecessarily elaborate scheme. Theistic evolutionists affirm evolution theory as scientifically valid and evolution as the means which which God creates new species. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Salvaging the change. The elaborate formulation is not sourced and it is not a good encyclopedic style. It's more like a programmers first Python code. I instead propose writing a plain English formulation. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The responsible user, who I don't wish to name, cannot respond for a year from now, so I decided it was best to revert the formulation to that immediatelly before that change. If any of you dislike the version that I restored to, feel free to improve if it remains English language (not a logic table, nor Python nor C++ code!!) and clarifies. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I support Rursus' cleaning up of the intro (and incidentally, elimination of a misuse of 'infer'). I've also tidied the grammar of the concluding sentence of the intro. -- Jmc (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gary Dargan quote

I would note that Gary Dargan, the source of the quoted Book of Animals summary is a geologist, not a religious historian or similar, and therefore is not a WP:RS for such claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Behe and Edge of Evolution

Behe is not a theistic evolutionist, and his Edge of Evolution is not, given widespread criticism of its inaccuracies (which covers material included in this article), a WP:RS. Thus according to WP:V#Questionable sources, as both it and Behe have "a poor reputation for fact-checking", it "should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" (and criteria for WP:SELFPUB, which EoE would fail in this context, needs to apply). As it is not a RS, it should not be given any WP:WEIGHT in articles about third parties. If a comparison/contrast between TEs and the more moderate IDers is desired, then a reliable third party source should be cited for the comparison. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Clearly citing Behe in this context is more contentious that I had thought would be the case. I will seek less contentious sources for this subject and post a rewrite of the material. Regards. Muzhogg (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Behe is a prominent IDer.Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya section

The source cited for the Ahmadiyya (available here on wayback) seems to describe a viewpoint closer to progressive creationism or intelligent design than TE (which fully accepts evolution by natural selection). I am therefore removing the section until a source can be found demonstrating that this view is compatible with TE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, what it says is that the Ahmadiyya 'bring in the idea of evolution to make room for "modern minds."' Then it refutes their belief. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hrafn, I disagree; the source may or may not suggest to be close to progressive creationism and intelligent design, but to be honest that is because any group that believes in TE automatically believes in intelligent design and progressive creationism. For TE see 1. --Peaceworld 09:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, TE does not entail belief in intelligent design and progressive creationism. Both of the latter viewpoints, and the apparent Ahmadiyya viewpoint, deny the Darwinian Theory of Evolution by natural selection that is the overwhelming scientific consensus. The link that you gave is chock full of creationist misunderstandings of evolution: -- quote mining Darwin on the eye, misrepresenting punctuated equilibrium as denying the continuity of transitional forms, a rather mendacious explanation of natural selection, etc. This distortion has little in common with "science of evolution" that TEs accept. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, not looking into the technical definition of intelligent design, TE does in someway or another adopt the idea of intelligent design, i.e. God or something being responsible for the evolutionary processes, otherwise what is theistic? And similarly TE does adhere to the progressive creationism, intro of which states the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years Yes, the idea of progressive creationism may not imply a belief in TE, but TE certainly implies a partial belief in PC, if you get what i mean? Lol, I'm not an academic in evolutionary theory but I don't know why I said that. Ok back to the main discussion, which part of the following you removed does not imply TE? I quote : The Ahmadiyya Movement is perhaps the only denomination in Islam that actively promotes evolutionary theory. Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Quran to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike more orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first Prophet of God – as opposed to him being the first man on Earth. Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the idea of a guided evolution, viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God. And can you be more specific why does the reference yo gave point to intelligent design and progressive creationism. Thank you.--Peaceworld 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

TE no more implies a belief in ID or PC than a theist's acceptance of gravity involves belief in intelligent falling. That evolution is undirected from the viewpoint of biology places it no more outside God's plan than the fact that the destination of a roulette ball is undirected from the viewpoint of physics places a casino outside it. TEs simply accept that random events are part of God's will, and that the lack of scientific evidence of God's involvement does not mean He was not involved. IDers/PCers insist that there must be scientifically-discernible evidence that God was involved. Many creationists, whether they admit it or not, believe in macroevolution (often at a rate far beyond what would be credible to science) -- e.g. the incredible rate that would be required to turn the number of animals that could fit on the Ark into the over one million species of animals in existence just a few thousand years later. Placing Ahmadiyya as 'Theistic Evolution' is an interpretation (and in my opinion a fairly dubious one), and as such requires a WP:SECONDARY source to avoid WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

4.2.1.3 Church of the Nazarene (Needs revision)

Entry appears a bit dated. I'll leave it to someone more seasoned in neutrality to figure out how to edit but it appears the current official church stance is in opposition to theistic evolution and might justify removal of Church of the Nazarene from being included in this page.

The main page currently states:

903.8 Creation

The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind.

However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator. (Articles I.1., V. 5.1, VII.) (2005)

However, the second part of that declaration been omitted form the 2009-2013 Church of the Nazarene Manual (pg. 373) which now only states;

903.9. Creation The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3). (1, 5.1, 7) (2009)

The previously mentioned bit about scientific discoveries have since been removed, and Hebrews 11:3 is now mentioned. This suggests the current, official stance leans more towards a rejection of theistic evolution as opposed to previous support.

To compound this issue further, schools such as Olivet Nazarene University still quote the 2005 manual as evidence of support of Olivet’s stance on theistic evolution as congruent with that of the Church of the Nazarene, despite the official manual possibly suggesting otherwise. (174.253.85.119 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

Orthodoxy

I'm an Orthodox Christian and I accept Theistic Evolution, but there are no citations on whether Orthodox Christians believe in Theistic Evolution or not! In fact, most of them are quite the Creationists! Please, erase it for avoiding misunderstanding...or at least citate it! You people let anyone edit wikipedia!!!! Argh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Leylaqq (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit wikipedia - including you. So why don't you fix it instead of just complaining? Farsight001 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found some citations. It appears that there Orthodox Christians who support both Evolution and Creationism. I'm fixing it right now. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Leylaqq (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find members for and against in all major Christian denominations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Read the Eastern Orthodox section now, it's more detailed and it has some citations. I erased everything previously writen, since not only there were no citations, but I didn't found anything on prescience etc., as stated. Fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Leylaqq (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You linked Compatibilism and Incompatibilism; both redirect to our article Compatibilism and incompatibilism, so I replaced the two separate links with a link there. But looking at that article, I'm not sure it's an appropriate link since that article deals with the (in)compatibility of free will with determinism, not the (in)compatibility of scripture with the scientific explanation of evolution. —Angr 14:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A better link might be to Relationship between religion and science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though that's already linked in the lead, as is conflict thesis. —Angr 14:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Who came up with the idea of using the terms 'compatibilism' and 'incompatibilism' for this? These terms are already too heavily loaded with a completely different meaning, namely, for differing positions concerning free-will and determinacy. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ 69.3.144.128 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the second term should be dualism, since essentially that is what is occurring. They (incompatiblisits) hold something to be true but acknowledge that there are two ways of interpreting that truth. I also added a link to Averroism, as it deals with the idea of having two different viewpoints be true.Don Marques (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)