Theistic evolution

Theistic evolution, is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. More specifically, it is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution.

This notion is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholicism and most mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning holy scriptures. Some evangelical Christians, including evangelist Billy Graham, are open to theistic evolution. [1] With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature. Many individuals stress the unreliability of Genesis as a scientific text, believing that God guided an evolution of life up to humans.

Both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time. [2] St. Augustine in the 4th century suggested on theological grounds that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in seven 24 hour days as a literal intrepretation of Genesis would require. [3]

The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.

Definition

Theistic evolution holds that the religious acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution.

This synthesis of the teleology underlying faith and religious teachings with science can still be described as creationism in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. For this reason, some on both sides prefer to use the term "theistic evolution" over "evolutionary creationism" to describe this belief.

Spectrum of viewpoints

Evolutionary creationism describes an approach to the biological world that accepts the scientific concepts of microevolution and macroevolution while retaining the theistic belief that the world is ultimately the result of divine creation, of which evolution is held to be the mechanism.

As cited below, several religious organizations accept evolutionary theory, though their related theological interpretations vary. Additionally, individuals or movements within such organizations may not accept evolution, and stances on evolution may have adapted (or evolved) throughout history.

See also sections of Abrahamic creationism on "The Christian Critique of Creationism" and "The western world outside the United States".

Deism

Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Some deists believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. They find it to be undignified and unwieldy for a deity to make constant adjustments rather than letting evolution elegantly adapt organisms to changing environments.

One good example of this is the recent (December 2004) conversion to deism of the former atheist philosopher Professor Antony Flew, who now argues that recent research into the origins of life supports the theory that some form of intelligence was involved. Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argues that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He has also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."

Some Deists contend that God ceased to exist after setting in motion the laws of the universe.

Christianity

Many denominations of Christianity support or accept theistic evolution. Particular instances are noted below:

Anglicanism

Although Anglicans (including the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Church of England and others) believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation," nonetheless "science and Christian theology can complement one another in the quest for truth and understanding." Specifically on the subject of creation/evolution, Anglicans view "Big Bang cosmology" as being "in tune with both the concepts of creation out of nothing and continuous creation." Their position is clearly set out in the Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science. In an interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams expressed his thought that "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories.... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." His view is that creationism should not be taught in schools.

Roman Catholic Church

Main Article: Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

In 1950, under the leadership of 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 particular historical individuals, Adam and Eve. This doctrine is known as "monogenism" versus "polygenism". [4]

In October 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis" and restated from Humani Generis that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God." However, as John Paul II recognized in his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In his 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 condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points." Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996. [5]

In July 2004, the International Theological Commission published a statement titled "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" on creation, evolution, and God's providence. The president of the commission was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of doctrine in the Catholic Church, who the following year became Pope Benedict XVI. The statement made explicit the Church's support of the findings of modern science and biological evolution, calling universal common descent "virtually certain," and that "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation." (See especially paragraphs 62-70).

In July 2005, in a controversial editorial Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna stated: "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..." (New York Times editorial, 7 July 2005) but this argument against "unguided evolution" has been contradicted by Cardinal Paul Poupard [6] and Vatican astronomer Fr. George Coyne, and later clarified by Cardinal Schönborn himself in a series of catechetical lectures [7] on the topic (to be published in book form).

Schönborn's true position is that he has no problem with the natural sciences as such but wishes to preserve the Catholic teaching that God is the Creator, that faith and reason do not conflict, and that scientists need to be aware of and respect one another's worldviews. Catholic dogma obviously rejects an atheistic materialism (philosophical or metaphysical naturalism) that some have interpreted as the meaning of evolutionary science: "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 (from Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins), 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... I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things." (Cardinal Schönborn, 2 October 2005, "Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands")

Evolution and Christian interpretations of Genesis

See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

A literal reading of Genesis is incompatible with evolution; however, according to Roman Catholicism and most Protestant Churches, Biblical Literalism is neither mandatory, nor universally accurate. Some conservative Christians think that seeing Genesis as a myth or as an allegory is some kind of "cop-out," and that it was always interpreted literally until biological evolution came and disproved it. However, many religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and theologian who is also a distinguished physicist, states in his Bible and Science (Christendom Press, 1996):

"Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers." (Jaki, pages 110-111)

Other Christian thinkers have pointed out that the concept of myth is not synonymous with being "false", and that some myths may be seen as "a truth in unfamiliar clothing" (For example, C.S. Lewis expounded this view, to which he had been introduced by his friends J.R.R. Tolkien and Owen Barfield.)

However, the Russian Orthodox hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose has argued that the leading Orthodox saints such as Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Ephraim the Syrian believed that Genesis should be treated as a historical account. (Genesis, Creation and Early Man, Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 2000) [8], [9]. For example, St. Basil the Great rejected an allegorical interpretation in his Hexaëmeron, and affirmed 24-hour creation days. Others from the so-called "Alexandrian school" were not strictly 24-hour day literalists (e.g. Origen of Alexandria). [10]

Augustine

The "metaphorical/literal" distinction arose with the rise of the Scientific Revolution, although its source could be found in earlier writings, such as those of Herodotus (5th century BC). At some times it was even considered heretical to interpret the Bible literally (cf. Origen, St. Jerome). St. Augustine (4th/5th century), one of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, was in fact the first person to propose a theory similar to evolution (cf. De Genesi ad litteram or The Literal Meaning of Genesis). He suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. [11]

In his book, The City of God, Augustine also defended what would today be called Young Earth creationism. This wasn’t in contradiction with the above explanation about biblical interpretation, since, at Augustine’s time, there was no compelling evidence against the idea of a young Earth. Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings. (Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419]

St. Augustine also comments on the word "day" in the creation week, admitting the interpretation of what "kind" of days constituted the creation week is difficult. (City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6).

Contemporary Christian considerations

Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under the section "The Divine Work of Creation," (pages 92-122) covers the "biblical hexahemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man, Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers, Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. Ott makes the following comments on the "science" of Genesis and the Fathers:

"...as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (Ott, page 92)

"As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific... The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis -- opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest." (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

The "Clergy Letter" Project, drafted in 2004, and signed by thousands of Christian clergy supporting evolution and faith, states:

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator." (An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science)

Islam

Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creationism, especially among the Liberal movements within Islam. More literalist Muslims, including followers of Wahhabism, reject origin of species from a common ancestor by evolution as incompatible with the Qur'an. However, even amongst Muslims who accept evolution, many believe that humanity was a special creation by God. For example, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, an American Muslim and specialist in Islamic law has argued in Islam and Evolution that a belief in macroevolution is not incompatible with Islam, as long as it is accepted that "Allah is the Creator of everything" (Qur'an 13:16) and that Allah specifically created humanity (in the person of Adam; Qur'an 38:71-76). Shaikh Keller clearly states in his conclusion however:

"As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else."

One of the main criticisms of evolution by Muslims is their assertion that it was created by and supports atheism, and so it is argued that it should be rejected (see for example, Why Darwinism is Incompatible With the Qur'an).

See also Islamic creationism.

Judaism

In general, Judaism's the major Jewish denominations accept theistic evolution, with the exception of some Orthodox groups. The general approach of advocates of theistic evolution within Judaism is that the creation account in the Torah is not to be taken as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic work.

See also Jewish creationism.

Other variants

Another perspective is that a Divine Creator engineers quantum events, in a manner which is apparently random, thus exercising authoritative power over nature. Alternatively, a Divine Creator may intervene through miracles, in the creation of souls, in an afterlife, or ways beyond known physics.

Evolutionary biologists who were also theists

Although evolutionary biologists have often been agnostics (most notably Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin) or atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), from the outset many have had a belief in some form of theism. These have included Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who in a joint paper with Charles Darwin in 1858, proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace was effectively a deist who believed that "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded to create life as well as consciousness in animals and (separately) in humans.

An early example of this kind of approach came from computing pioneer Charles Babbage who published his unofficial Ninth Bridgewater Treatise in 1837, putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator, making laws (or programs) which then produced species at the appropriate times, rather than continually interfering with ad hoc miracles each time a new species was required.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) was a noted geologist and paleontologist as well as a Jesuit Priest who wrote extensively on the subject of incorporating evolution into a new understanding of Christianity. Initially suppressed by the Catholic Church, his theological work has had considerable influence and is widely taught in Catholic and most mainline Protestant seminaries.

Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, 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."

Contemporary advocates of evolutionary creationism

Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and evolutionary creationists include

• Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution"). His book has been strongly criticised by creationists.[12]
• Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick;
• R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London;
• evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003);
• biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999);
• biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science;
• paleontologist Robert T. Bakker;
• microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of the book Random Designer;
• paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.
• Francis S. Collins, geneticist, physician, mathematician and chemist; former president of the Human Genome Project and author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" and other works.

Philosophers, theologians, and physical scientists who have supported the evolutionary creationist model include

• theologian-philosopher John Haught of Georgetown University;
• theologian Rev. Keith Ward, former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, author of God, Chance, and Necessity;
• physicist and theologian Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University;
• theologian-philosopher Thomas Jay Oord of Northwest Nazarene University
• Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory.

Criticisms of theistic evolution

The major atheistic criticism of evolutionary creationism focuses on the belief in a supernatural creator, which violates the methodological naturalism and the falsifiability requirements of scientific philosophy. This criticism would be accurate in the case of a theistic evolution proponent trying to portray his view as a scientific theory, but hardly applies to someone correctly explaining it as a view that adds scientific knowledge with more personal beliefs. Furthermore, an atheist portraying his personal rejection of the idea of a Creator as if it were part of the scientific explanation of evolution would also be in error. An important distinction to make is that materialism and naturalism are in science specifically for methodological reasons, not for ontological ones. Among other things, it means that science does not deal with the question of the existence of a Creator, and argues neither for nor against it. By the same token, a scientist is entitled to apply Occam's razor and hold that if sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by the principle of natural selection, there is no cause to allow the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity. As an illustration of this basic position, Robert Todd Carroll stated that "the universe would appear the same to us whether it was designed by God or not" (The Skeptic's Dictionary).

Another criticism of some forms of evolutionary creationism (especially those of deists) is that they are simply a belief in a God of the gaps, where anything that cannot currently be explained by science is attributed to God. For example, the physicist Dr. Paul Davies has stated: "I flatly reject the argument that the origin of life was some sort of miracle. To be sure, we don't yet know how it happened, but that doesn't mean a cosmic magician is needed to prod atoms around." Theists reject evolution primarily on the basis of their scriptures. Most monotheistic scriptures contain a creation story describing an event in which animals and humans are instantly created by a supernatural being, typically each in a different way, which contradicts the process of natural selection if taken literally.

Criticism of theistic evolution is tempered by our limited understanding of a broader question: how did the Universe originate together with time and space, and why it appears to be so well suited for the origin and evolution of life (anthropic principle)? Such philosophical questions may never be addressed by science.

Young Earth creationists criticize theistic evolution on theological grounds (see External links).

“Intelligent design”

Some adherents of theistic evolution hold that the deity both designed the universe and has a continuing part in its development, and feel that a term they favour has been hijacked by the proponents of the viewpoint called "Intelligent design" (which is in effect a form of "literal" creationism, denying the principal tenets of the theory of evolution). Statements to this effect have been made by Kenneth R. Miller and Charles Townes, amongst others.

See also

• Atheism
• Biblical cosmology
• Cosmogony
• Cosmological argument
• Creator god
• Deism
• Existence
• Natural theology
• Arthur Peacocke
• Theism
• Timeline of the Big Bang
• Timeline of the Universe
• Ultimate fate of the universe

References

• Miller, Kenneth R.; (1999) Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution ISBN 0060930497
• Miller, Keith B.; (2003) Perspectives on an Evolving Creation ISBN 0802805124
• Falk, Darrel; (2004) Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology ISBN 0830827420

External links

• What is Creationism? by Mark Isaak, presents various forms of creationism
• What is Evolution? by Laurence Moran, presents a standard definition for evolution
• Answers In Creation old earth creationism, but open to theistic evolution
• Evolution & Creation: A Theosophic Synthesis Surveys critical problems in Darwinist explanations and common theistic views; explores ancient and modern "excluded middle" alternatives
• US Catholic News - Creationists Hijack Intelligent Design
• Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"
• Spectrum of Creation Beliefs From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution

Proponents of theistic evolution

• Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution by Theodosius Dobzhansky (see also: Wikipedia's article)
• Kenneth R Miller's homepage
• God and Evolution — part of the talk.origins Archive
• Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On Evolution subtitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", by Pope John Paul II, 22 October 1996.
• On Cosmology and Fundamental Physics, by Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981.
• Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God Statement on creation and evolution from the International Theological Commission headed by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), 23 July 2004.
• Perspectives on Theistic Evolution An examination of both the theological and scientific aspects of theistic evolution.
• The "Clergy Letter" Project signed by thousands of clergy supporting evolution and faith
• DMD Publishing Co. home page Essays arguing that even a literal treatment of Genesis requires theistic evolution.
• Thomas Jay Oord Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being, Templeton, 2003.

Opponents of theistic evolution

• About Atheism on the topic
• Answers in Genesis
• Why is evolution so dangerous for Christians to believe? (articles from Creation Ministries International)
• Institute for Creation Research
  • The Compromise Road by Henry Morris
• Saving the Appearances: A study in Idolatry by Owen Barfield
• What's wrong with theistic evolution? by Answers Depot