Talk:Theistic evolution

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, anyone can edit wikipedia - including you.  So why don't you fix it instead of just complaining? Farsight001 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you'll find members for and against in all major Christian denominations. HrafnTalkStalk 14:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Read the Eastern Orthodox section now, it's more detailed and it has some citations. I erased everything previously writen, since not only there were no citations, but I didn't found anything on prescience etc., as stated. Fixed!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Leylaqq (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You linked Compatibilism and Incompatibilism; both redirect to our article Compatibilism and incompatibilism, so I replaced the two separate links with a link there. But looking at that article, I'm not sure it's an appropriate link since that article deals with the (in)compatibility of free will with determinism, not the (in)compatibility of scripture with the scientific explanation of evolution. —Angr 14:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A better link might be to Relationship between religion and science. HrafnTalkStalk 14:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though that's already linked in the lead, as is conflict thesis. —Angr 14:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodoxy 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, but to be consistent, we'd also have to remove TE from the template (:template:Creationism2). I have raised the issue on that template's talk page. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It used to have both the Creationism and the Evolution template.  I don't really know why the latter is gone now. Farsight001 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Whys is this called creationism?

message: 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? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Mark Noll , Gray's belief was in divine design manifested in providence, not intervention. ~ Serapio (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Gray a theistic evolutionist? 

message: Flew's views appear to be (i) muddled & (ii) closer to ID than to TE. Should he be included in the Deism section? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unclear to me what's being asked here. Do you mean removing mention of Flew from the Intelligent Design article altogether (he already appears under "deism" in that article)? And when you suggest he's "muddled" do you mean with respect to the use of the terms "theist"" and "deist"? If so, I take objection to both suggestions on the following basis; In the review of There is a God by philosopher Gary Habermas [] it is pointed out that Flew prefers "deist" to "theist" but avoids the former because of its unfamiliarity (see particularly the discussion - in the main body and footnote - associated with footnote 7 []). See also the article cited by Habermas: Antony Flew and Gary Habermas, "My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas," Philosophia Christi 6 (2004): 197 - 211. It's clear that the question of design was very influential in Flew's "conversion" to deism and that positions himself somewhere in the overlap between deism and intelligent design (not mutually exclusive categories). My apologies if I have not properly understood your objection and therefore offered an irrelevant response. Muzhogg (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah! Now I see what you're getting at - the original point was obvious in retrospect but thanks for your patience in working through your thinking. My response is that one should be guided by the article's own definition of Theistic Evolution (methodological naturalism is considered a defining attribute) and Deism (that the deity does not 'interfere with the world or create miracles') and categorize Flew on that basis. I think there sufficient ambiguity on both points to merit raising the question you have, but unless it can be shown that Flew (1) rejects methodological naturalism; or (2) argues for something like a "miraculous" creation of an initial cell; then I think he should remain under deism Muzhogg (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that the reason that Flew has given for his conversion from Atheism to some version of Deism is an argument from design-style rejection of of the efficacy of a purely naturalistic/scientific explanation of the existence of life-as-we-know it. The exact contents of his belief system, and particularly whether it meets the strict definition of 'Deism' (as his position appear to imply some interference after the creation of the universe, to ensure that life-as-we-know-it came about), or even if it is coherent, is (I think) beside the point. I disagree with your argument for continued inclusion -- given that Flew is neither an unambiguous example of a Deistic Evolutionist, nor famous for his advocacy of such a position, nor appears to self-identify with that label (it appears to be a WP:SYNTH inference, rather than an explicit avowal from Flew himself). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice point - it reverses my previous thinking regarding inclusion. My only objection is that I think the article's definitions are highly relevant as they surely have to be the defining criteria for how Flew is dealt with in the article itself (please note that I'm not trying to turn this into an argument over semantics, just trying to clarify criteria of assessment). Taking such criteria into account, there is clearly little or no ambiguity regarding Flews association with ID whilst his association with Deism requires clarification. I would suggest that to justify inclusion under "Deism" Flew would have to be shown, with a high degree of certainty, to (1) accept methodological naturalism; and (2) self-identify as a deist. Otherwise he would be more appropriately called an ID advocate with deistic leanings. Let me just add that if (1) and (2) were shown, the likely point of discussion would fall on the nature of "intelligence" in Flew's thought. As he seems to think that the universe itself is made up of "mind-stuff" (George Wald, cited in There is a God p.131) his view of deity would be something like Spinoza's and I would then argue that he is best classified as a "deist with ID leanings". I only mention it to make clear what I think are the concrete criteria for any other person wishing to argue for inclusion under "deism". I obviously recognize the possiblity of future disambiguation and so leave the question somewhat open but as it stands, I support Hrafn's call to relocate Flew under ID rather than Deism given the current article description of his position.  Muzhogg (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Flew a 'Deistic Evolutionist'? Is he prominently one? 

message: 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. Clearly citing Behe in this context is more contentious that I had thought would be the case. I will seek less contentious sources for this subject and post a rewrite of the material. Regards. Muzhogg (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Behe is a prominent IDer.Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behe and ''Edge of Evolution'' 

message: The lead currently states:
However, the clearest articulation of a definition of TE I could find among the sources states:
Do we have a source stating that acceptance, that is only partial ("much … of"), of "the modern scientific understanding", still falls within TE? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Amero-Centric 

message: #EC (like TE) isn't a 'separate belief', but a viewpoint harmonising science with a pre-existing theistic belief.
#EC is not "in fact a creationist stance." (See Scott citation in article)
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't what the hidden statement questioned. The hidden statement questioned that the formulation was in disaccord with TE (= EC), by expressing a creationist stance. By TE we mean the full acceptance of evolution as a scientific model, and its harmony with religious belief. The topic is however obsolete from the intro being reformulated. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden comment from article 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed it. Worldcat was down when I checked it, but neither Google nor Google Books could find anything outside WP on it (which, given that it is purported to be a 2009 book, tends to support non-existence). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Confirmation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic Church 

message: The intro provides unpleasant amateur philosophy:
:In short, theistic evolutionists believe that:
::1. ...then... 2. ...then... 2.a. ...then... 2.b. ...then... 2.b.1. ...then 2.b.2.
:(† Note, 2a and 2b2 infer ...blablabla...)
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)
replies: text: Salvaging the change. The elaborate formulation is not sourced and it is not a good encyclopedic style. It's more like a programmers first Python code. I instead propose writing a plain English formulation. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The responsible user, who I don't wish to name, cannot respond for a year from now, so I decided it was best to revert the formulation to that immediatelly before that change. If any of you dislike the version that I restored to, feel free to improve if it remains English language (not a logic table, nor Python nor C++ code!!) and clarifies. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I support Rursus' cleaning up of the intro (and incidentally, elimination of a misuse of 'infer'). I've also tidied the grammar of the concluding sentence of the intro. -- Jmc (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unpleasant intro

message: 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Dargan quote 

message: 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what it says is that the Ahmadiyya 'bring in the idea of evolution to make room for "modern minds."' Then it refutes their belief. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 09:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Hi Hrafn, I disagree; the source may or may not suggest to be close to progressive creationism and intelligent design, but to be honest that is because any group that believes in TE automatically believes in intelligent design and progressive creationism. For TE see 1. --Peaceworld 09:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, TE does not entail belief in intelligent design and progressive creationism. Both of the latter viewpoints, and the apparent Ahmadiyya viewpoint, deny the Darwinian Theory of Evolution by natural selection that is the overwhelming scientific consensus. The link that you gave is chock full of creationist misunderstandings of evolution: -- quote mining Darwin on the eye, misrepresenting punctuated equilibrium as denying the continuity of transitional forms, a rather mendacious explanation of natural selection, etc. This distortion has little in common with "science of evolution" that TEs accept. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not looking into the technical definition of intelligent design, TE does in someway or another adopt the idea of intelligent design, i.e. God or something being responsible for the evolutionary processes, otherwise what is theistic? And similarly TE does adhere to the progressive creationism, intro of which states  the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years Yes, the idea of progressive creationism may not imply a belief in TE, but TE certainly implies a partial belief in PC, if you get what i mean? Lol, I'm not an academic in evolutionary theory but I don't know why I said that. Ok back to the main discussion, which part of the following you removed does not imply TE? I quote : The Ahmadiyya Movement is perhaps the only denomination in Islam that actively promotes evolutionary theory. Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Quran to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike more orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first Prophet of God – as opposed to him being the first man on Earth. Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the idea of a guided evolution, viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God.  And can you be more specific why does the reference yo gave point to intelligent design and progressive creationism. Thank you.--Peaceworld 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TE no more implies a belief in ID or PC than a theist's acceptance of gravity involves belief in intelligent falling. That evolution is undirected from the viewpoint of biology places it no more outside God's plan than the fact that the destination of a roulette ball is undirected from the viewpoint of physics places a casino outside it. TEs simply accept that random events are part of God's will, and that the lack of scientific evidence of God's involvement does not mean He was not involved. IDers/PCers insist that there must be scientifically-discernible evidence that God was involved. Many creationists, whether they admit it or not, believe in macroevolution (often at a rate far beyond what would be credible to science) -- e.g. the incredible rate that would be required to turn the number of animals that could fit on the Ark into the over one million species of animals in existence just a few thousand years later. Placing Ahmadiyya as 'Theistic Evolution' is an interpretation (and in my opinion a fairly dubious one), and as such requires a WP:SECONDARY source to avoid WP:Synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadiyya section 

message: 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:
However, the second part of that declaration been omitted form the 2009-2013 Church of the Nazarene Manual (pg. 373) which now only states; 
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)
thread_title:  4.2.1.3 Church of the Nazarene (Needs revision) 

message: *Original version of the article, before June 13 cuts: 
*Science in Theistic Contexts: A Case Study of Alfred Russel Wallace on Human Evolution
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
*Creation and Evolution
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
*Colling, esp. p. 42: Academic Freedom and Tenure: Olivet Nazarene University (Illinois), Gregory F. Scholtz and Ruth Caldwell
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
*Collins, Seeing God's Hand in Evolution
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
*Conway Morris, esp last page: The Goldilocks Hypothesis
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
*Miller & Goodenough: Falling Off a Tightrope: Compromise and Accomodation in The War Between Creationism and Evolution
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)
thread_title: Refs

message: 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)
replies: text: I think you're reading too much into the words "his own school of religious thought". I don't take it to mean that he's the inventor, just an adherent. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, looking now at earlier sources the term seems to have been in use for quite a while - but enjoyed a resurgence when Collins championed it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

text: In fact it appears to have been popular in the decade following the publication of The Origin of Species - a historical aspect that is lacking in the current article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably best to cut this to a bare bone, and rebuild it using reliable academic secondary sources on the topic of theistic evolution. I've asked Dave Souza for help with the sourcing. He is very familiar with the reliable sources for creationism, and might have some good suggestions where to start. I'm looking through scholarly sources myself, but it will take me a while to figure out what's usable and representative, and what's not. Thanks for your help. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise! I think we have a reasonable basis now for moving forward. I've come across a footnote: "For an indication of the popularity achieved by theistic evolutionism in the decade after the Origin of Species was published, see Alvar Ellegard, Darwin and the General Reader. The Reception of Darwin's Theoryof Evolution in the British Periodical Press, 1859-1873 (Goteburg: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis, 1958), esp. pp. 272-273." but it appears that book content isn't online. Also, I'm coming to think this article would be better entitled "theistic evolutionism" ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have mentioned a couple of sources above, beware of changing the title as "evolutionism" is a term of the art referring to certain 19th century beliefs, best avoided in relation to modern evolutionary science. Partly because it has been much abused by creationists. The term theistic evolution is used by several sources, and of course it's easy to link the longer theistic evolutionism in the specific instances where it's appropriate. . dave souza, talk 19:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may well be the case, but in modern contexts it is used freely and with no special sense eg by Eugenie Scott in the article now cited in our article and by this historian of science: 
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)
replies: text: Good edit, I'm happy with it as an alternative name but don't think it should be the article title for the reasons above. Bowler's history of evolutionary science does use "theistic evolutionism" to describe attempts to incorporate divine intervention into science, an effort which was abandoned by around 1900. Variants on the term, most commonly theistic evolution, are used after then for theological accommodation with the findings of science. . dave souza, talk 13:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

text: JSTOR has rafts of articles called or about "theistic evolution" going back into the 19th century, with a particular burst in the 1920s. It is very different from creationism (a much more recent term I think, though of course not a recent view). Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collins the inventor? 

message: 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what labels the subjects of articles embrace.  It only matters what labels reliable sources on the subject embrace. Capeo (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the group labeled also uses that label to describe themselves, a label assigned in a reliable source by a person, or even another group, is a characterization that should be clearly attributed as the label used by the person or group promulgating that label. This would certainly be done with racial labels, for example, and should also be done with ideological labels.  Democrats, for example, don't object to being called Democrats.  But just because some reliable sources labels Democrats as "leftists" does not mean Wikipedia should take sides and use that label without any attribution, such as "So and so describes Democrats as leftists..."--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We describe groups as they are described in reliable independent secondary sources, and it does not matter whether they agree with that are not. Please read our policies already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we label racist groups as racist, in Wikipedia's voice, if RS's do as well.  We don't label the Democratic party as leftists because no reliable sources do though we do label their platform as center-left because that's how reliable sources label them. Capeo (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Theistic Evolutionists Object to Being Labeled Creationists? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted this addition. A Google search produces no RS for its use. -- Jmc (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Twas a sock anyway. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOD-guided Evolution Theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: Although Wikipedia articles are not references, the articles you linked to do contain references that appear to support the claim that they both at least feel that TE is compatible with Christianity, but I'm currently juggling my laptop and a bowl of Sesame chicken and so cannot check to confirm this. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters of TE? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If there's WP:RSs for it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, I've googled around a bit and there are definitely sources discussing Deistic evolution as a variation distinct from Theistic evolution. Pandeist (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Since they're discussing it in relation to Theistic evolution, and more as a theorhetical position than an existing and independent position, I'd say it's not enough for a distinct article, but certainly WP:DUE for its own section in the "Relationship to other positions" section. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some more research on this and found a few things -- firstly that there used to be a "Deistic evolution" page ten years ago but this was very short and so got merged up here along the lines of your discussion. But secondly there's a much more thoroughly cited page on the topic over at Rationalwiki, which shares our CC-BY-SA licensing. And thirdly worldwide sources show use of this specific formulation as a specific contrast to Theistic varieties going back on about 120 years. Putting all that together I found more than enough material to sustain a solo page, so I've gone ahead and made it at Deistic evolution. Blessings, brother!! Pandeist (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would Deistic evolution be a distinct concept?  

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that evolutionary creationism should not be labeled as pseudoscience, insofar as its supporters understand that it's a religious, extra-scientific worldview, not science. That seems to be the case; the current intro does a good job saying exactly that. However, on what basis can you claim that New Atheism is pushing an agenda here? The term "New Atheism" was in fact fabricated by a single journalist with an anti-atheist agenda, so by simply imputing blame on a quasi-conspiracy theory you are displaying great ignorance and prejudice on the topic. Please assume good faith and stick to the facts, even in the comments section.--Sisgeo (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim of a conspiracy theory on my part reads into my post what was not there.  I said "one."  As in, whichever one editor added "pseudoscientific" may have done so the grounds of "it's a religious idea so it's anti-science" -- the sort of thinking advocated writers and followers associated with the New Atheist movement (a label which has spread beyond a single journalist to describe atheists who evangelically reject the idea of Non-overlapping magisteria).  Also, the term was coined by Tom Flynn, who is an atheist, writing why he didn't agree with the evangelical Atheism that Hitchens and Dawkins were popularizing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not pseudoscientific 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709052029/http://www.bartleby.com/65/so/soul.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/so/soul.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Those people are classified as young-earth creationists, not theistic evolutionists. Unlike TE, YEC is pseudoscientific. Flood geology does not have anything to do with TE. Félix An (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing pseudoscientific about believing in a local flood tho. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'flood' 

message: 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)
replies: text: But CD referred to both apes and monkeys with the term Quadrumana, now resolved!  . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Perhaps a Venn diagram may have assisted with the oversimplification asserted by the other editor(s). Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apes are not quadrupeds 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some sources

message: 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)
replies: text: I have tagged the section with . This is "unsourced contentious material about living persons" and deserves to be removed immediately. Please do not restore it without WP:RS. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has removed the maintenance tag without fixing the issue. I have removed the section again. We cannot simply wave our hands and say "go chase the wikilinks to the articles and find the sources there", especially in a case such as this, where I am finding many false claims. The sources are not there, and the claims are not corroborated. So please supply sources first, and then you may replace the names in this article. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:V:  Yes, everything in lists must be verifiable with an inline citation. A wikilink to an article is not an inline citation! 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Supporters" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is there a difference between theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism? 

message: The label "pseudoscientific" was added a few days ago by , who is likely a block-evading sockpuppet of . Neither source supports it; the first is a blogpost about theology and atheism, and the second is a website promoting :intelligent design. Cheers, gnu57 19:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking this to the Talk page, as requested in my reversion. I concur that the sources given for the addition of the label "pseudoscientific" do not support it. -- Jmc (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscientific 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nemine dissentiente I'll make the change. -- Jmc (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the additional terms in a footnote. Félix An (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Félix An Nicely done! I've corrected the singular > plural verb agreement. -- Jmc (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution? 

message: 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)
replies: text: These are just general comments and complaints. As WP:TALK explains, please make specific proposals for article improvement, with links to the sources you propose, or full details of the sources. . . dave souza, talk 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself has all the necessary sources. You need me to name everything? I'm talking about most of the article where most of the sources lie with it. There is no complaints at all about the article, it's mainly directed at editors using tactics similar to vandal editing. And it's not intended as general comments. It's a criticism of how this article has remained almost a stub the past 10 years despite being of extremely high importance. It should be easy to see what I'm proposing for article improvement and it sounds like you're MAYBE probably trolling to not see what I said properly tbh. I've proposed Catholic sources and mainline protestant statements regarding their philosophical understandings of science, I've proposed adding more info to the article instead of keeping it bare thin, I've proposed explaining how is intelligent design incompatible with theistic evolution, and I've proposed an explanation theoretically of what the theistic evolutionism entails philosophically, and where the logical argument lies for or against it instead of these random comments all over the place saying nothing basically or very little, and to avoid side-stepping what sources say about the Big Bang link hypothesis. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Still vague, lacks specifics and sources, and the edits you've made get things wrong. Discuss the changes you want in detail, here. . . dave souza, talk 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is all false and sounds ridiculous. Do you have any proof? Explain how my last edit is wrong on here, explain where the specifics and sources are missing, explain how it's vague. Tell me what you're unable to understand in the roughly 20 sentences I've written here trying to explain this super in depth in detail to you. How is this not you trolling right now to be unable to give me a satisfactory response that addresses my many various point in depth or detail one by one fairly and concisely in a serious manner? 184.71.97.170 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points have been fully addressed, so I'll remove the tag. If you feel specific wording needs improved, set it out fully on this talk page together with exact information or links to the references to justify your proposed change. Ta, dave souza, talk 09:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a source in Reference 55 about how the universe came from nothing and they're debating about how God created the universe ex nihilo with the Big Bang and how theistic evolutionism claims the necessity of God for this. So why is JMC to desperate to remove content he labels as irrelevant info by trying to explain the dialectic in that debate Lawrence M. Krauss has with theistic evolutionism? It looks completely out of context about all of that stuff it's talking about on this article. It's like you know, yes, God is a complex explanation to involve in explaining the process of natural evolution in all of the universe, and it says he doesn't like that because it isn't simple enough, and he thinks very simple answers tend to be the best answers to giant deep theological questions about the nature and origin of the universe because of that Catholic monk's idea of Occam's Razor being persuasive, which makes him think God can't be real because God-guided evolution isn't a more simple or less smart answer than things just happen randomly without any foresight or insightful planning, everything is just chaos, statistical miracles of life are just flukes. But where is the argument or the point of it exactly? 184.71.97.170 (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are you consistently casting aspersions against Jmc? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Interesting response to my collaborative discussion with Mr. Souza I thought was bearing some good fruit. Is this like meant to be a funny WP:wikilawyering internet meme thing or something? Feels out of place with the theme of my intended talk section here to me since it's not directed against JMC personally, but just an edit conflict regarding views of how things must proceed on this article. You can ask me on my talk page because I'd not like this to get too off-topic. As I explained at the start, expressing the opinion explaining my logic about how I find the edits of JMC problematic in an NPOV dispute is not WP:aspersions. It's literally my opinion. I'm entitled to my own opinion under law to have freedom of thought and expression under the charter of rights and what I've been doing is not a violation of any law that I know of. It's a response to him calling me an arbitrary editor to justify reverting most (if not all) of my edits that he can. I've assumed good faith with JMC until I see otherwise, so I haven't accused him of anything regarding his personal character specifically. 184.71.97.170 (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Charter Rights do not apply on Wikipedia, which is a private organization (and also based in the United States... but the First Amendment doesn't apply here either). How is this not trolling? --RockstoneSend me a message! 16:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute.