Talk:Theistic evolution/Archive 1

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

message: I believe the article should be titled Theistic Evolution, with Evolutionary Creationism as the alternative name.  Theistic evolution is simply the term that is most commonly accepted, and in fact, I have not even heard of Evolutionary Creationism until the past year, and I am heavily involved in these discussions over a wide variety of forums.  Even a quick check in Google will show which one is the one generally used.  This is of course, assuming they are even the same thing, and of course, I'd prefer they be split.  But if they must be together, I propose that Theistic Evolution should be the term used as Evolutionary Creationism itself is not very neutral and most people who hold this position would probably rather be lumped in the Evolution side of the debate than with the Creationist side as far as the scientific aspects go.
Furthermore, a lot of us feel there is a difference between Creation and CreationISM.  Generally, us TEs will probably accept the following statement: We believe in Creation, we reject Creationism, and we accept evolution.  If any other TE/ECs feel differently, feel free to respond.
Basically, the whole -ism makes it feel very non-NPOV, but then again, not having the -ism could be argued as non-NPOV by the Creationists as well. Dracil 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why EC over TE?

message: * Alfred Wallace did not "jointly propose" natural selection. Wallace first thought of natural selection in 1858 but Darwin had been working on natural selection for the past twenty years before then. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Wallace's first natural selection-related analysis was published in 1863.
**Lyell and Hooker presented Wallace's essay, along with sections by Darwin to the Linnean Society of London in 1858, so the first public presentation was by both Darwin and Wallace. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "The custom of making abstract dogmatic assertions is not, certainly, derived from the teaching of Jesus, but has been a widespread weakness among religious teachers in subsequent centuries. I do not think that the word for the Christian virtue of faith should be prostituted to mean the credulous acceptance of all such piously intended assertions. Much self-deception in the young believer is needed to convince himself that he knows that of which in reality he knows himself to be ignorant. That surely is hypocrisy, against which we have been most conspicuously warned."
**But, nonetheless, it says "he saw no reason to abandon the faith in which he had been brought up", so, however unorthodox, he remained a believer in both God and evolution. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on individuals within this article

message: *Kenneth Miller is an opponent of intelligent design; thus, he's an opponent of creationism, however, he has written a single book on the religious implications of evolution titled Finding Darwin's God. Such a book is not, necessarily, an advocation of evolutionary creationism.
**Not necessarily, but in extracts from the book here he states that "evolution is the key to understanding God" and that he believes in God (as well as evolution). I think it's therefore fair to characterise him as an evolutionary creationist. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Views of Kenneth Miller

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

message: Hello, I'm new here. I made some edits to the theistic evolution entry, adding more folks besides Kenneth Miller, more material from St. Augustine and John Paul II on evolution and how they interpret Genesis. What was there was very good, but its richer in content now.
I suggest making either EC re-direct to TE or TE re-direct to EC. They appeared to be identical in content, and I didn't delete anyone's work, but added to it. I was accused of destroying the page here by making it re-direct to "theistic evolution" but the two pages appeared identical so I just re-directed.
Should there be two separate entries for EC and TE, or have the folks here decided they are one and the same concept? Maybe two different ways of saying "God used evolution as his main method of creation." That is my view. Evolution is a scientific fact, and God did it (somehow). Whether one calls that theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism doesn't matter to me, but the more well-known term seems to be "theistic evolution."
PhilVaz 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for your edits and for pointing out the duplicate pages. You did the right thing in redirecting, just got it the wrong way round, as we'd already decided that we were going to keep it here! Thanks again- I hope that you keep up the good work! --G Rutter 20:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the compliment. I'm pretty satisifed by the quality of the article here on evolutionary creationism. I added individual Wikipedia entries (with pictures) for Keith B. Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Fr. George Coyne, Darrel Falk, John Haught all of whom I was familiar with and have their books. Also one for the Pontifical Academy of Science. Nice job I must say.
However, entries need to be made for the following mentioned in the article, since I don't have their books and am not familiar enough with them:
*Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
*R.J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
*Keith Ward, author of God, Chance, and Necessity
The more evolutionary creationists we have the better. :)
PhilVaz 18:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary Creationism = Theistic Evolution

message: The China Vase: What can science tell us about the china vase? It can measure: height, width, depth, volume, weight, mass, chemical composition, mathematical shape; it can hypothesize on a process of spinning a lump of clay, using tools and water to form it, pressure applied here and there to give it shape, a sequence of events that went into its creation, that it was dried, and glazed, and fired, how the firing process made it stronger, how its shiny surface transmits light. Science can tell us just about everything about the china vase. What it cannot do is tell us who made it. And so, for some reason, it abandons logic, it tosses aside Occum’s razor, and adopts the odd assumption that the china vase just happened. Phiddipus 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in the process of reverting this when someone beat me to it. This qualifies as original research unless you can find a source that states this argument. And if you do, it needs to be sourced and presented as their point of view. the idea that science "abandons logic" and asserts the vase "just happened" would make me wager that at least part of this is simply original research. FuelWagon 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The China Vase 

message: There's too much information on Christian views, pro and con, for this article. And the bullet point formatting makes it hard to read.
Those interested in what religious people have to say about Evolution - particularly as it relates to the US creation-evolution debate, will be better served with a spin-off. Wikipedia:Content forking provides guidelines on how to do this. Uncle Ed 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is enough material for a spin-off in this instance. In particular, I'm not sure what the difference between the Christian views on this subject and the subject itself are since this subject is basically defined by Christians. Do you have a particular reference you are working from? --ScienceApologist 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd be very interested to hear about all those atheist Creationists out there.  *eye-roll* -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin off [[Christian views on evolutionary creationism]]