Talk:Theistic science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"rejected by the mainstream science and religion movement"[edit]

So TS is rejected by mainstream science and also by mainstrem religion, although my saying this merely reflects original research. I assumed that this is what the line quoted in my header referred to. However, the link was an article about a movement ("science and religion") which involves (was started by?)a woman named Eugenie Scott. My question; why are her polemics asserted to be "mainstream", while a belief system ascribed to by figures such as Francis Collins and C.S. Lewis (neither mentioned in the article) fringe by comparison? I understand why this may be so from the standpoint of the scientific community, but it ws not made clear that that was the intention of the descrition. From a cultural standpoint, Ms. Scott is not more mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking scholarship for polemics. If you want others mentioned in the article, please provide sources making explicit connections between their writings and theistic science. . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


ID is part of theistic science, not the other way around, since theistic science also includes Islamic Science. So, I don't think the ID infobox belongs in the article. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

All the main proponents are ID proponents, and have shown it in that context. The article refers to Islamic Science as an example of similar ideas to theistic science, and does not state "theistic science also includes Islamic Science" so that's irrelevant. . dave souza, talk 16:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This source appears to disagree:
  • Iqbal, Muzaffar. "Teaching science from an Islamic perspective." Islam & Science 9.1 (2011): 3+.
  • Quote (bolding added by me), "Science does not deal with what is beyond the physical realm. This legitimate boundary need not be altered in an Islamic reconfiguration; all that is required in this regard is an acknowledgment of the realms beyond physical reality and an understanding that there are branches of knowledge other than science which deal with those realms. reality is not confined to what can be observed and measured. The drop of rain falling down from the sky is much more than a cluster of water molecules randomly coming down by the force of gravity. In fact, even the popular conception of theistic science being the study of the second 'book' in a rather unsound binary model called the two-book-theory (i.e., the books of nature and scripture) will have to be abandoned to arrive at a unified view of the created order, whose physical form reflects the same script as that of the Book. It is not our intention here to articulate a program of science teaching from an Islamic perspective; the scope is merely to point out its urgent need and provide a few suggestions which can be used to develop such a program." Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, is Denis Alexander a proponent of ID? If not, and his WP bio says he isn't, then he is apparently another proponent of theistic science who isn't a proponent of ID:
  • Haarsma, Deborah, and Loren Haarsma. "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?" Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 62.1 (2010): 65+.
  • Quote (bolding added): "Denis Alexander is well known to the ASA, as editor of Science and Christian Belief and director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. He has led a distinguished career as a research biologist, including leadership of the Molecular Immunology Programme at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. In Creation or Evolution, he offers a clear and compelling case for theistic evolution, the view that God used evolution to bring about all the species on Earth, including humans." Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Another one, Francis Collins, believes in "theistic evolution," but not ID:
  • "Pope names NIH head to Vatican science academy." The Christian Century 126.23 (2009): 16+.
  • Quote, "His best-selling book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006) argued for the compatibility of Darwin's theory of natural selection with the existence of a creator God. Rejecting both creationism and intelligent design, Collins espoused "theistic evolution" as an explanation for the existence of the universe and life." Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Another, using the phrase "theistic evolution" to connect it to the Islamic belief system. Is "theistic evolution" different than "theistic science?"
  • Iqbal, Muzaffar. "Darwin's shadow: context and reception in the Muslim world." Islam & Science 7.1 (2009): 9+.
  • Quote, "Muslim responses to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism range from an unconditional acceptance to various versions of theistic evolution, and from a vociferous rejection to a view that sees it as a liberating scientific fact. These responses have parallels in Christian responses to Darwinism. There has been almost no original scientific research by any Muslim scientist which can serve as an alternate to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. This is unlike the Christian tradition which has produced a broad range of scientific literature in response to Darwinism." Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually Wikipedia does have separate entries for "theistic science" and "theistic evolution", but the sources sometimes appear to use then to mean the same thing. Any way to differentiate the two? Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Missing the point - navboxes are just that, navigational boxes. Theistic science is an element of ID...that doesn't mean that it's a subtype of ID - rather, it's an integral component of it. Theistic evolution and theistic science are very different creatures - the former is an accommodation between religion and evolution, the latter is an attempt to put God back into science - what Plantinga has called an "Augustinian science"...the kind of thing that late medieval natural philosophers did. You really need to do some background reading. Guettarda (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Guettarda, I have. Do you remember when I tried to start "Theistic Science" as a category? It was based on seeing mentions of the phrase in articles about Islamic Science, such as the one I listed at the top of the list of sources above. So, if Islamic philosophers are using the phrase "Theistic Science", then it appears that ID proponents aren't the only ones that use it, and this article needs to have some changes made to it. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If you have educated yourself about the topic, then why are you conflating theistic science with theistic evolution? It's easy enough to mix things up if you aren't familiar with the topic. If you are, but still choose to conflate the two things - then that's just being disruptive. Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the problem here is that the topic of this article has never been defined. Theistic science could refer to natural philosophy. And that would probably be the ideal place to stop. But then we have the attempt to resurrect "theistic science" post-McLean. And issue that, when it really boils down to it, only matters in the US because of the whole issue of the first amendment. Are they the same? We can't say that they are, or really, that they aren't...not without good sources, without review articles that attempt to get at the subtleties involved here. We can't just look at shared names and declare that they are the same, even if the shared names are not coincidental (see Budweiser). Now the whole issue of what Iqbal is talking about...well, that's another issue altogether. Iqbal says that he is not, like Augustine, calling for a "two book" approach. Now, Plantinga and Moreland may not be doing so either; use of the name "Augustinian science" suggests some things, but that's not conclusive.

Conflating theistic science and theistic evolution, of course, one step further down the road of mistaken conflation. Of course, not everyone uses terminology precisely, so who knows how any random person might use the terminology. Which is, once again, why we need reputable, scholarly sources. Not editors using Google or, worse yet, Wikipedia articles, as a source of information.

One thing is clear though, and that's the fact that the dominant meaning used on this page is intimately associated with ID. Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight[edit]

I have recently added a simple mention of one person (Ian J. Thompson) who proposes a theory of theistic science and a link to his blog ( Shortly thereafter my post was reverted for undue weight. I would like to get a group consensus regarding this as I fail to see how anyone can consider such a minor amount of information to add undue weight. In addition, I edited the description to indicate that the term theistic science actually refers to multiple divergent but similar viewpoints as this seemed necessary to indicate for purposes of clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parspes (talkcontribs) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your source is a self-published blog, and is therefore neither reliable nor independent. Ian J Thompson's "theory" deserves has weight only to the extent that it has been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources, in this case real academic philosophers of science. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we can consider this to be the typical Einstein heresy issue. What qualifications would you postulate to be sufficient? Thompson's work has been presented in multiple philosophical journals and he is holder of a Ph.D. as well as the author of several books. The theory is based upon work of a previously renowned philosopher.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parspes (talkcontribs) 05:54, 25 March 2012‎

The required qualifications are set out fully in WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR. If the work has been presented in multiple philosophical journals then no doubt a reliable secondary source will have published discussion of the work and can be cited as a source. Also, please sign your posts. . dave souza, talk 07:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Parspes, we do allow blogs to be used as sources when the individual commenting in the blog is considered to be an expert or noteworthy commentator in a particular subject. Do you have specific citations or sources which would help us establish if this person is considered important on theistic science? Cla68 (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Why is "Theistic science" considered pseudoscience? And who, particularly in the religious world, rejects it? (Note that I am not arguing against the use of the word pseudoscience in the lede; I only want our readers to be able to get right to the section or paragraph which explains how theistic realism fails to meet scientific norms. This should be easy! :-)

In fact, point me in the right direction, and I'll add this information myself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)