Talk:Theistic science

message: 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 (http://blog.beginningtheisticscience.com/). 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 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undue Weight 

message: changes the attribution of "science stopper" to Eugenie Scott instead of Plantinga. Indeed, the statement does not sound like Plantinga. What he says on the subject is usually far more "asinine", to borrow the IP's wording.
The Scott source attributes the term itself to Plantinga but does not say that he used the term to denounce his own position, theistic science. So, I guess the edit is correct for the wrong reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Scott and Plantinga are more nuanced than the original wording, I've changed it to "theistic science seeks to allow exceptions to the basic methods of science, and present miraculous interventions as a scientific explanation when a natural explanation has not been found. As Alvin Plantinga acknowledges, this is a "science stopper", .... see , From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154. As commented by , "Plantinga himself agrees that recourse to miracles is a 'science stopper.' But as a philosopher and as a Christian, he is happy to accept this. 'The claim that God has directly created life, for example may be a science stopper';" Plantinga acknowledges that science has always sought natural explanations, but gets weasely round this: Scott highlights his footnote 31 suggesting a scientist could think as follows "God has created the world, and of course has created everything in it directly or indirectly. After a great deal of study, we cannot see how he created some phenomenon P (life, for example) indirectly; thus probably he has created it directly." His Theistic Science is an evasive justification for thus stopping science. . .dave souza, talk 23:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plantinga and Scott