This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theistic evolution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Theistic evolution. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Theistic evolution at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 1 (top)
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Willandrade24,
Bidhi Mandal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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))
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". [2]"
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))
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))
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. [1]
References
-- ( Isaac.holeman ( talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC))
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. [4]
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)
This seems a bit too American-centric overall, doesn't make mention of international views. Particularly in the assertion that "all mainline portestant support it" -- which is a bit too general a statement-- should be support is found in many mianstreeam Protestant gorups-- or something of that variety --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.12.224 ( talk) 03:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Nidhiki 05 17:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The intro provides unpleasant amateur philosophy:
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)
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)
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)
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))
here - the top part of the list ("Contemporary biologists") is worth keeping & should, where true, be capable of being referenced. The rest I agree we don't need. Johnbod ( talk) 01:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Martin Fichman Osiris , 2nd Series, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions (2001), pp. 227-250 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301987
Philip E. Devine Religious Studies , Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1996), pp. 325-337 Published by: Cambridge University Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019826
Academe , Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2009), pp. 41-57 Published by: American Association of University Professors Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40253299
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins Review by: Amy E. Schwartz The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) , Vol. 30, No. 3 (Summer, 2006), pp. 108-109 Published by: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40261406
Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe by Simon Conway Morris Review by: Douglas H. Erwin Science , New Series, Vol. 302, No. 5651 (Dec. 5, 2003), pp. 1682-1683 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3835865
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and EvolutionRocks of AgesThe Sacred Depths of Nature by Kenneth R. Miller; Stephen Jay Gould; Ursula Goodenough Review by: BARRY A. PALEVITZ BioScience , Vol. 50, No. 10 (October 2000), pp. 926-929 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences Article DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0926:FOATCA]2.0.CO;2 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568%282000%29050%5B0926%3AFOATCA%5D2.0.CO%3B2
(added Johnbod ( talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC) )
(added dave souza, talk 14:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)) + 14:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like it. I propose that to be eligible for inclusion here, material must be backed by sources which make specific mention of "theistic evolution" - it is not enough for editors here to take concepts/positions, reason for themselves that they they are within the scope of theistic evolution, and then create material on that basis. This being the case, a large proportion of this article needs to be removed until/unless solid sourcing can be found. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 04:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This article implies that "theistic evolution" was devised by Francis Collins (who has since moved on to "biologos"). Is this right? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse Review by: Peter J. Bowler Journal of the History of Biology , Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 226-228 Published by: Springer Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4332006 - I have added it to the lead - it already redirected here. Johnbod ( talk) 13:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Rahner (1975) appears to be rather out of date regarding the RC position on direct creation of humanity: Scott notes "In 1996, Pope John Paul II (1996) reiterated the Catholic version of theistic evolution, in which God created, evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more primitive forms, but the hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. The current pope, Benedict XVI, has reiterated the evolution-friendly Catholic view, stressing the importance of rejecting philosophical naturalism (Lawton, 2007)." See also more recent coverage, [8] [9] [10] [11] suggesting some lack of clarity in papal thought on the issue. . dave souza, talk 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod ( talk) 10:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not quite accurate, the only thing which is dogma (Ex Cathedra or otherwise) on this would be that only humans can go to Hell. No, Aquinas having said something at some point does not necessarily make it a non-negotiable "core teaching" even though he is a Doctor of the Church. An alternative view, which frankly works better with an afterlife based on multiple realizability of individual identity where we are all mental kinds in God's mind (as opposed to humans having a homunculus/"disembodied mind"/"ghost in the machine," a view which fails to reconcile with neuroscience), is that while all life has an afterlife only humans can go to Hell and the ability to go to Hell makes Heaven that much more special for us if we make it there.
For sources, consider this book by Dr. Mary Buddemeyer-Porter, which incidentally is available in some Catholic book stores: http://www.catholicgiftsandbooks.com/will-i-see-fido-in-heaven-by-mary-buddemeyer-porter. (It wouldn't be sold there if it were in bad standing with the Church, but it is as it is not in bad standing.) There are other similar books, such as Cold Noses at the Pearly Gates by Gary Kurz. I'm not here to give an exhaustive list of such books, however, but rather to use the Talk Page to improve the Article.
Note that this concept of all life having an afterlife but only humans being capable of going to Hell is not what Dharmic religions teach in terms of reincarnation/transmigration and should be distinguished therefrom; other beings simply go to Heaven albeit perhaps to a lesser Heaven than that of humans. They do not transmigrate to other bodies until they become human, as Dharmic religions teach.
Therefore, I suggest that the Article clarify the matter by (A) stating that the "core teaching" is that only humans can go to Hell and (B) discussing various views on nonhuman life going to Paradise/Heaven. (Reconciling afterlife theology with neuroscience would tend to say yes since humans are just as chemically explainable as other life, but that's just a quick aside, and there are better places than Wikipedia to argue that point.) The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I recently made a small edit at Creationism requesting a citation in the section asserting that there are three types of creationists. . . though the table in the section [ /info/en/?search=Creationism#Types_of_creationism Types of Creationism} lists four types, including theistic evolutionists. My tag for a source was immediately reverted by Dominus Vobisdu without explanation. I guess some people think requesting sources on this subject is verboten . . .
In any case, I have raised this question on the talk page and would invite those active on theistic evolution to chime in and help to improve the page on creationism. It appears to me that this article, theistic evolution, is much more balanced than the page on creationism which I believe unfairly seeks to rigidly define theistic evolution and intelligent design as forms of "creationism" despite the fact that I have seen adherents to both frequently insist that they are not creationists. Words are important, and labeling people and their beliefs with a word [creationism] which is so strongly associated with Genesis literalists seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Though I recognize that Richard Dawkins and others do try to conflate creationism with any belief in the supernatural, these encyclopedia articles should not resort to labeling conventions which the holders of a belief do not embrace.– GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I added GOD-guided evolution to the beginning of this article since this term is commonly used; perhaps most commonly used. Omnireligious ( talk) 14:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick reading over the names cited as "people supporting theistic evolution" and I found out that probably some of that people are not supporters of TE, that is, at least Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig are not - I'm atesting this as a reader of their work. Of course I may have missed some updates, but that is what I know for the time being. So I would recommend a revision of those names - and inclusion of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momergil ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Theistic evolution would seem to stand in contrast to a concept of Deistic evolution wherein all is set forth from a designed initial state, and flows therefrom without need of further intervention from its Creator. Pandeist ( talk) 19:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Would we be starting this as a part of this page, or as a new one all its own? Either way....
Christian Theology, by Millard J. Erickson, 2013:
Deistic Evolution: Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution, producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws its development has followed. Thus, he programmed the process and then withdrew from active involvement with the world, becoming, so to speak, Creator Emeritus. God is the Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter, deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution, for it denies that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing creative process. Deistic evolution has little difficulty with the scientific data. There is a definite conflict, however, between deism's view of an absentee God and the biblical picture of a God who has been involved in a whole series of creative acts. In particular, both Genesis accounts of the origin of human beings indicate that God definitely and distinctly willed and acted to bring them into existence. In addition, deistic evolution conflicts with the scriptural doctrine of providence, according to which God is personally and intimately concerned with and involved in what is going on in the specific events within his entire creation.
There's actually another book with a much longer treatment of Deistic Evolution here.... but I fear if I copied all that here, the copyright police would have my ass. Pandeist ( talk) 06:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I've had to once again revert the addition of the word "pseudoscientific" from the intro.
The standard evolutionary model is not pseudoscientific. Theistic evolution is just a word for religious people interpreting their religious text in ways to accommodate and wholly accept the standard evolutionary model without any scientific modifications. They may find different philosophical meaning, but the science remains the same. As such, it is no more science or pseudoscience than pantheism or agnosticism -- it is a philosophical position (more specifically a theological one).
To add "pseudoscientific" to the intro indicates that one either does not know what theistic evolution is or else they are pushing a New Atheist POV. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Theistic evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The following was added in these diffs:
Some theists have said that the existence of a god can only explain the purposive quality of evolution. Theologian Frederick Robert Tennant is the first theist widely known to put forward such an argument. In volume 2 of his Philosophical Theology he says.
the multitude of interwoven adaptations by which the world is constituted a theatre of life, intelligence, and morality, cannot reasonably be regarded as an outcome of mechanism, or of blind formative power, or aught but purposive intelligence [1]
That is an OK source, but the content here begs the question, in the statement that evolution has a purpose. Also, this bit, as the source cited makes clear, is an intelligent design argument, and if it belongs anywhere in this article, it belongs in that section. ID is not synonymous with theistic evolution. Jytdog ( talk) 01:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering you haven't responded Ill take that as a silent fine. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- ... the purposive quality of natural selection is best explained by intelligent design.
- The first theist widely known to have made such an argument is Frederick Robert Tennant.
This article seems to be missing any content relating to the requirement for the subset of Christians who believe in the 'Flood' as a literal event that a limited number of undefined 'kinds' have 'since' (supposedly) rapidly developed into more than a million individual species. The concept would seem to be within the scope of this article.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap restored an incorrect claim that Darwin's statement about humans being "descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears" referred to 'an ape'. Darwin referred to an arboreal quadruped that he postulated as a common ancestor of humans and apes. Apes are not quadrupeds, they don't have pointed years, and they don't have tails. Humans are a type of ape, they are not descended from them. Don't restore the erroneous equivocation.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
While seeking out hairy quadrupeds, I found these sources which may be useful, though some may already have been used. .. dave souza, talk 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed the list of alleged "supporters" of theistic evolution, because zero sources were provided. Actually, a couple of "sources" were linked inline for the popes, and these documents had zero mention of "theistic evolution" in them. I do not object to restoring some names when they can be supported by reliable secondary sources that specifically mention "theistic evolution". The same goes for Category:Theistic evolutionists which I have been emptying because of a marked lack of support in the sources for this epithet. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 16:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
To me, they seem like the same idea. I use both terms interchangeably (I would consider myself as such). What are the differences, if any, between the two? Félix An ( talk) 00:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Jmc: The label "pseudoscientific" was added a few days ago by PopulationMilestones, who is likely a block-evading sockpuppet of World Population 7,800,000,000. Neither source supports it; the first is a blogpost about theology and atheism, and the second is a website promoting intelligent design. Cheers, gnu 57 19:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose reducing the initial terms used in the lede to the single term 'Theistic evolution'. The usage of alternative terms is cavassed in the Definition section (and 'God-guided evolution' is not among them). -- Jmc ( talk) 20:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
User JMC asked me to talk to him on the talk page about why I find his edits problematic because he thinks it's just me "being arbitrary" he had stated on my talk page without explaining at first in his original comment directed at me.
So, here is the list of problems in short order:
1. "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased."
2. "Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance)."
3. "The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another."
For 1. this article leaves out tons of information to adequately explain what theistic evolutionism is or any arguments for it at all whatsoever and only lists arguments against it, both ludicrously and hilariously enough, even though Charles Darwin teaches it as the factual form of his evolutionary theory. They also made a huge list of people from this movement opposed to intelligent design, which seems to make very little sense without explaining how or where this conflict exists between the two theories. I've known people who argued for a scientific theory in support of theistic evolutionism to explain the claim the Big Bang happened through intelligent design (advocates of the teleological argument) so something seems fishy here.
2. There's a huge focus on this argument about who is in conflict with this seemingly normal hypothesis (very unusual fringe groups like young earth creationists, new atheists, intelligent design maybe, etc.) and very little about who is in support of it in the West, such as the Catholic Church (what they call " special creation" involves these things), Mainline Protestantism, etc.
3. Several recent editors in the list but very long before me, however especially JMC are trying to severely limit the tone of this article to a faux "neutrality" that leaves very little room for explaining the details of this article and keeps it very, very small and unbalanced in the proportion of different segment types of related info within this article.
184.71.97.170 ( talk) 11:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theistic evolution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Theistic evolution. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Theistic evolution at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 1 (top)
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Willandrade24,
Bidhi Mandal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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))
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". [2]"
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))
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))
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. [1]
References
-- ( Isaac.holeman ( talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC))
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. [4]
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)
This seems a bit too American-centric overall, doesn't make mention of international views. Particularly in the assertion that "all mainline portestant support it" -- which is a bit too general a statement-- should be support is found in many mianstreeam Protestant gorups-- or something of that variety --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.12.224 ( talk) 03:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Nidhiki 05 17:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The intro provides unpleasant amateur philosophy:
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)
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)
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)
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))
here - the top part of the list ("Contemporary biologists") is worth keeping & should, where true, be capable of being referenced. The rest I agree we don't need. Johnbod ( talk) 01:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Martin Fichman Osiris , 2nd Series, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions (2001), pp. 227-250 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301987
Philip E. Devine Religious Studies , Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1996), pp. 325-337 Published by: Cambridge University Press Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019826
Academe , Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2009), pp. 41-57 Published by: American Association of University Professors Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40253299
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins Review by: Amy E. Schwartz The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) , Vol. 30, No. 3 (Summer, 2006), pp. 108-109 Published by: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40261406
Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe by Simon Conway Morris Review by: Douglas H. Erwin Science , New Series, Vol. 302, No. 5651 (Dec. 5, 2003), pp. 1682-1683 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3835865
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and EvolutionRocks of AgesThe Sacred Depths of Nature by Kenneth R. Miller; Stephen Jay Gould; Ursula Goodenough Review by: BARRY A. PALEVITZ BioScience , Vol. 50, No. 10 (October 2000), pp. 926-929 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences Article DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0926:FOATCA]2.0.CO;2 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568%282000%29050%5B0926%3AFOATCA%5D2.0.CO%3B2
(added Johnbod ( talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC) )
(added dave souza, talk 14:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)) + 14:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like it. I propose that to be eligible for inclusion here, material must be backed by sources which make specific mention of "theistic evolution" - it is not enough for editors here to take concepts/positions, reason for themselves that they they are within the scope of theistic evolution, and then create material on that basis. This being the case, a large proportion of this article needs to be removed until/unless solid sourcing can be found. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 04:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This article implies that "theistic evolution" was devised by Francis Collins (who has since moved on to "biologos"). Is this right? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse Review by: Peter J. Bowler Journal of the History of Biology , Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 226-228 Published by: Springer Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4332006 - I have added it to the lead - it already redirected here. Johnbod ( talk) 13:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Rahner (1975) appears to be rather out of date regarding the RC position on direct creation of humanity: Scott notes "In 1996, Pope John Paul II (1996) reiterated the Catholic version of theistic evolution, in which God created, evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more primitive forms, but the hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. The current pope, Benedict XVI, has reiterated the evolution-friendly Catholic view, stressing the importance of rejecting philosophical naturalism (Lawton, 2007)." See also more recent coverage, [8] [9] [10] [11] suggesting some lack of clarity in papal thought on the issue. . dave souza, talk 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod ( talk) 10:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not quite accurate, the only thing which is dogma (Ex Cathedra or otherwise) on this would be that only humans can go to Hell. No, Aquinas having said something at some point does not necessarily make it a non-negotiable "core teaching" even though he is a Doctor of the Church. An alternative view, which frankly works better with an afterlife based on multiple realizability of individual identity where we are all mental kinds in God's mind (as opposed to humans having a homunculus/"disembodied mind"/"ghost in the machine," a view which fails to reconcile with neuroscience), is that while all life has an afterlife only humans can go to Hell and the ability to go to Hell makes Heaven that much more special for us if we make it there.
For sources, consider this book by Dr. Mary Buddemeyer-Porter, which incidentally is available in some Catholic book stores: http://www.catholicgiftsandbooks.com/will-i-see-fido-in-heaven-by-mary-buddemeyer-porter. (It wouldn't be sold there if it were in bad standing with the Church, but it is as it is not in bad standing.) There are other similar books, such as Cold Noses at the Pearly Gates by Gary Kurz. I'm not here to give an exhaustive list of such books, however, but rather to use the Talk Page to improve the Article.
Note that this concept of all life having an afterlife but only humans being capable of going to Hell is not what Dharmic religions teach in terms of reincarnation/transmigration and should be distinguished therefrom; other beings simply go to Heaven albeit perhaps to a lesser Heaven than that of humans. They do not transmigrate to other bodies until they become human, as Dharmic religions teach.
Therefore, I suggest that the Article clarify the matter by (A) stating that the "core teaching" is that only humans can go to Hell and (B) discussing various views on nonhuman life going to Paradise/Heaven. (Reconciling afterlife theology with neuroscience would tend to say yes since humans are just as chemically explainable as other life, but that's just a quick aside, and there are better places than Wikipedia to argue that point.) The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I recently made a small edit at Creationism requesting a citation in the section asserting that there are three types of creationists. . . though the table in the section [ /info/en/?search=Creationism#Types_of_creationism Types of Creationism} lists four types, including theistic evolutionists. My tag for a source was immediately reverted by Dominus Vobisdu without explanation. I guess some people think requesting sources on this subject is verboten . . .
In any case, I have raised this question on the talk page and would invite those active on theistic evolution to chime in and help to improve the page on creationism. It appears to me that this article, theistic evolution, is much more balanced than the page on creationism which I believe unfairly seeks to rigidly define theistic evolution and intelligent design as forms of "creationism" despite the fact that I have seen adherents to both frequently insist that they are not creationists. Words are important, and labeling people and their beliefs with a word [creationism] which is so strongly associated with Genesis literalists seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Though I recognize that Richard Dawkins and others do try to conflate creationism with any belief in the supernatural, these encyclopedia articles should not resort to labeling conventions which the holders of a belief do not embrace.– GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I added GOD-guided evolution to the beginning of this article since this term is commonly used; perhaps most commonly used. Omnireligious ( talk) 14:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick reading over the names cited as "people supporting theistic evolution" and I found out that probably some of that people are not supporters of TE, that is, at least Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig are not - I'm atesting this as a reader of their work. Of course I may have missed some updates, but that is what I know for the time being. So I would recommend a revision of those names - and inclusion of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momergil ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Theistic evolution would seem to stand in contrast to a concept of Deistic evolution wherein all is set forth from a designed initial state, and flows therefrom without need of further intervention from its Creator. Pandeist ( talk) 19:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Would we be starting this as a part of this page, or as a new one all its own? Either way....
Christian Theology, by Millard J. Erickson, 2013:
Deistic Evolution: Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution, producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws its development has followed. Thus, he programmed the process and then withdrew from active involvement with the world, becoming, so to speak, Creator Emeritus. God is the Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter, deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution, for it denies that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing creative process. Deistic evolution has little difficulty with the scientific data. There is a definite conflict, however, between deism's view of an absentee God and the biblical picture of a God who has been involved in a whole series of creative acts. In particular, both Genesis accounts of the origin of human beings indicate that God definitely and distinctly willed and acted to bring them into existence. In addition, deistic evolution conflicts with the scriptural doctrine of providence, according to which God is personally and intimately concerned with and involved in what is going on in the specific events within his entire creation.
There's actually another book with a much longer treatment of Deistic Evolution here.... but I fear if I copied all that here, the copyright police would have my ass. Pandeist ( talk) 06:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I've had to once again revert the addition of the word "pseudoscientific" from the intro.
The standard evolutionary model is not pseudoscientific. Theistic evolution is just a word for religious people interpreting their religious text in ways to accommodate and wholly accept the standard evolutionary model without any scientific modifications. They may find different philosophical meaning, but the science remains the same. As such, it is no more science or pseudoscience than pantheism or agnosticism -- it is a philosophical position (more specifically a theological one).
To add "pseudoscientific" to the intro indicates that one either does not know what theistic evolution is or else they are pushing a New Atheist POV. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Theistic evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The following was added in these diffs:
Some theists have said that the existence of a god can only explain the purposive quality of evolution. Theologian Frederick Robert Tennant is the first theist widely known to put forward such an argument. In volume 2 of his Philosophical Theology he says.
the multitude of interwoven adaptations by which the world is constituted a theatre of life, intelligence, and morality, cannot reasonably be regarded as an outcome of mechanism, or of blind formative power, or aught but purposive intelligence [1]
That is an OK source, but the content here begs the question, in the statement that evolution has a purpose. Also, this bit, as the source cited makes clear, is an intelligent design argument, and if it belongs anywhere in this article, it belongs in that section. ID is not synonymous with theistic evolution. Jytdog ( talk) 01:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering you haven't responded Ill take that as a silent fine. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- ... the purposive quality of natural selection is best explained by intelligent design.
- The first theist widely known to have made such an argument is Frederick Robert Tennant.
This article seems to be missing any content relating to the requirement for the subset of Christians who believe in the 'Flood' as a literal event that a limited number of undefined 'kinds' have 'since' (supposedly) rapidly developed into more than a million individual species. The concept would seem to be within the scope of this article.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap restored an incorrect claim that Darwin's statement about humans being "descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears" referred to 'an ape'. Darwin referred to an arboreal quadruped that he postulated as a common ancestor of humans and apes. Apes are not quadrupeds, they don't have pointed years, and they don't have tails. Humans are a type of ape, they are not descended from them. Don't restore the erroneous equivocation.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
While seeking out hairy quadrupeds, I found these sources which may be useful, though some may already have been used. .. dave souza, talk 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed the list of alleged "supporters" of theistic evolution, because zero sources were provided. Actually, a couple of "sources" were linked inline for the popes, and these documents had zero mention of "theistic evolution" in them. I do not object to restoring some names when they can be supported by reliable secondary sources that specifically mention "theistic evolution". The same goes for Category:Theistic evolutionists which I have been emptying because of a marked lack of support in the sources for this epithet. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 16:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
To me, they seem like the same idea. I use both terms interchangeably (I would consider myself as such). What are the differences, if any, between the two? Félix An ( talk) 00:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Jmc: The label "pseudoscientific" was added a few days ago by PopulationMilestones, who is likely a block-evading sockpuppet of World Population 7,800,000,000. Neither source supports it; the first is a blogpost about theology and atheism, and the second is a website promoting intelligent design. Cheers, gnu 57 19:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose reducing the initial terms used in the lede to the single term 'Theistic evolution'. The usage of alternative terms is cavassed in the Definition section (and 'God-guided evolution' is not among them). -- Jmc ( talk) 20:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
User JMC asked me to talk to him on the talk page about why I find his edits problematic because he thinks it's just me "being arbitrary" he had stated on my talk page without explaining at first in his original comment directed at me.
So, here is the list of problems in short order:
1. "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased."
2. "Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance)."
3. "The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another."
For 1. this article leaves out tons of information to adequately explain what theistic evolutionism is or any arguments for it at all whatsoever and only lists arguments against it, both ludicrously and hilariously enough, even though Charles Darwin teaches it as the factual form of his evolutionary theory. They also made a huge list of people from this movement opposed to intelligent design, which seems to make very little sense without explaining how or where this conflict exists between the two theories. I've known people who argued for a scientific theory in support of theistic evolutionism to explain the claim the Big Bang happened through intelligent design (advocates of the teleological argument) so something seems fishy here.
2. There's a huge focus on this argument about who is in conflict with this seemingly normal hypothesis (very unusual fringe groups like young earth creationists, new atheists, intelligent design maybe, etc.) and very little about who is in support of it in the West, such as the Catholic Church (what they call " special creation" involves these things), Mainline Protestantism, etc.
3. Several recent editors in the list but very long before me, however especially JMC are trying to severely limit the tone of this article to a faux "neutrality" that leaves very little room for explaining the details of this article and keeps it very, very small and unbalanced in the proportion of different segment types of related info within this article.
184.71.97.170 ( talk) 11:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)