Misplaced Pages

Theistic science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:45, 27 April 2005 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits rv -- take it to talk if you disagree.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:26, 18 June 2023 edit undoDave souza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators48,672 edits →top: ... As Alvin Plantinga acknowledges.... 
(319 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Intelligent Design}}
'''Theistic realism''' is a term coined by ] in his book, ''Reason in the Balance'', although the basic idea has been held in one form or another by others. The idea holds that true knowledge must begin with the acknowledgment of ] as creator, because the unifying characteristic of the universe is that it was created by God. More broadly, it is the idea that God is real and personal, and that a proper theism requires an understanding of God as ''acting'' in the world, particularly through ].
'''Theistic science''', also referred to as '''theistic realism''',<ref name=Dembski>{{cite book | last = Dembski | first = William | author-link = William A. Dembski | title = Mere Creation | publisher = InterVarsity Press | location = Downers Grove | year = 1998 | isbn = 0-8308-1515-5 |page=315}}</ref> is the ] proposal that the central ] of requiring testability, known as ], should be replaced by a ] that allows occasional ] explanations which are inherently untestable.<ref name="NCSE Psci 2003">{{cite web |first=Eugenie C. |last=Scott |author-link=Eugenie Scott | title=My Favorite Pseudoscience | website=NCSE | url=https://ncse.com/library-resource/my-favorite-pseudoscience |year=2003 | access-date=4 October 2017}}</ref><ref name=Stenmark187/> Proponents propose supernatural explanations for topics raised by their theology, in particular evolution.<ref name="S&RM">] "The 'science and religion movement': an opportunity for improved public understanding of science?", in {{cite book | last = Kurtz | first = Paul | title = Science and Religion | publisher = Prometheus Books | location = Buffalo | year = 2003 | isbn = 1-59102-064-6 | page = | url = https://archive.org/details/sciencereligiona00kurt/page/104 }}</ref>


Supporters of theistic realism or theistic science include ] creationism proponents ], ]<ref name=VanTil>{{cite journal | title = Special Creationism in Designer Clothing: A Response to The Creation Hypothesis | journal = ] | date = June 1995 | first = Howard | last = Van Till |author-link=Howard J. Van Till | volume = 47 | issue = 123 | url = http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1995/PSCF6-95VanTill.html | access-date = 2011-01-21}}</ref><ref name="ncse 18">{{Cite web | last = Scott | first = Eugenie C. | title = Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18 (2) | url = http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2410 | publisher = ] | year = 1998 | access-date = 11 March 2012 }}</ref> and ].<ref name=Dembski/>
Theistic realism stands in opposition to ]. While philosophical naturalism holds that natural phenomena are best understood with reference only to themselves and hypotheses about creators are unnecessary and unparsimonious, theistic realism holds that natural phenomena are best understood with reference to the Creator, and that because they were created, any attempt to understand them without acknowledging the creator is doomed to fail. Theistic realists therefore ascribe to ] and hold that the universe and life ''cannot'' be explained naturalistically. By extension, it is claimed that theories attempting to do so are fundamentally flawed and that the universe and life can ''only'' be explained with reference to an intelligent creator.
== Scriptural basis ==


Instead of the ] being a dialogue, 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 ] acknowledges, this is a "science stopper",<ref name="NCSE">{{cite web | last = Scott | first = Eugenie C. | title="Science and Religion", "Christian Scholarship", and "Theistic Science" | website=NCSE |year=1998 | url=https://ncse.com/library-resource/science-religion-christian-scholarship-theistic-science | access-date=5 October 2017}}</ref> and these concepts lack any mainstream credence.<ref name="S&RM" />
Johnson grounds his argument for theistic realism in several verses in the ] of the ]. Particularly:
: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." John 1:1-3


==Johnson==
: "Ever since the creation of the world eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling the mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles." Romans 1:20-23.
{{See also|Timeline of intelligent design}}
In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled in '']'' that a Louisiana law requiring that ] be taught in public school science classes, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. Academic UC Berkeley law professor ], a prominent supporter of the law, became convinced that ] had lost the case because the ] used by the ] in defining ] does not include ] processes, and therefore (unfairly, in his opinion) excluded creationism. He concluded that creationists must therefore redefine science to restore the ], and developed the ].<ref name=BF07> (pdf) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007, Retrieved 2007-06-12.</ref> The ] began with the publication of '']'' in 1989,<ref name=pandafounds> by Nick Matzke 2004, Retrieved 2007-06-12.</ref> and Johnson later became its de facto leader.<ref name=BF07/>


In his 1995 book ''Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education'', Johnson labelled his position ''theistic realism'' which, in contrast to ], assumed "that the universe and all its creatures were brought into existence for a purpose by God. Theistic realists expect this 'fact' of creation to have empirical, observable consequences that are different from the consequences one would observe if the universe were the product of non rational causes". While "God always has the option of working through regular secondary mechanisms" which were often to be seen, "many important questions—including the origin of genetic information and human consciousness—may not be explicable in terms of unintelligent causes".<ref name="NCSE Wedge">{{cite web |first=Barbara |last=Forrest |author-link=Barbara Forrest | title=The Wedge at Work | website=NCSE | date=3 December 2008 | url=https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/wedge-at-work#_edn130 | access-date=5 October 2017}}</ref>
: "The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom." Proverbs 1:7


In an essay written in 1996, Johnson wrote of the ] that "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism' — or sometimes, 'mere creation' — as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."<ref name="ncse.wedge">{{Cite web | title = What is &quot;Intelligent Design&quot; Creationism? | url = https://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism | publisher = National Center for Science Education | access-date = 30 September 2017 }}</ref><ref>, ], 1996, cited in Forrest&Gross(2004) p315</ref> Johnson presents theistic realism as a ] justification for ] in his book, ''Reason in the Balance''. According to Johnson, true ] begins with the acknowledgment of ] as creator of the ], the unifying characteristic of which is that it was created by God. ] realism relies on a concept of God which involves the notions that He is real, personal, and acting in the world through mechanistic ].{{page needed|date=January 2011}}
As with much of Johnson's work in the area of science and religion, faith-based foundations of theistic realism are considered convincing arguments since his audience tends to be theists, and particularly ] who are on the creationist side of the ].


The Wedge Document of 1999 states "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."<ref name="ncse.wedge" />
== Theistic realism and philosophical naturalism ==


==Moreland==
Johnson argues that in the theistic worldview, true knowledge begins with acknowledging that humanity and the universe are created, and then progresses by exploring the nature of that creation, and through it, seeks to understand God. By contrast, philosophical naturalism is neutral on the subject of the existence of the creator, seeks to understand creation without reference to the creator, and therefore, according to Johnson, leads to inevitable failure.
Moreland describes theistic science as a research program that is "rooted in the idea that Christians ought to consult all they know or have reason to believe in forming and testing hypotheses, explaining things in science and evaluating the plausibility of various hypotheses, and among the things they should consult are propositions of theology (and philosophy)", and defines its two central propositions as:<ref name=VanTil/>
#"God, conceived of as a personal, transcendent agent of great power and intelligence, has through direct, primary agent causation and indirect, ] created and designed the world for a purpose and has directly intervened in the course of its development at various times (including prehistory, history prior to the arrival of human beings)," and
#"The commitment expressed in proposition 1 can appropriately enter into the very fabric of the practice of science and the utilization of scientific methodology"


He recommends that the way science is practised should be fundamentally altered to make God's intervention an acceptable scientific explanation, but would not apply this in all areas, as "theologians have little interest in whether a methane molecule has three or four hydrogen atoms". He would see miraculous intervention being needed as God "designed the world for a purpose", and "has directly intervened in the course of its development at various points" which would include "directly creating the universe, first life, the basic kinds of life, and humans".<ref name="ncse 18" />
Johnson argues that mainstream science has been taken hostage by ], and therefore it and theistic realism are diametrically opposed, because:
:"Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science, says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the biblical and naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender."


==Plantinga==
He criticized modern science further:
In a 1991 paper, Plantinga identifies theistic science with ]:
:" collapse into intellectual futility and confusion when we discard the Creator as a remnant of prescientific superstition, but that it is precisely by the 'death of God' that humankind comes of age and becomes ready to receive the truth that Darwinism is all too ready to provide."
{{quote|'Unnatural Science', 'Creation Science,' 'Theistic Science' — call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by that methodological naturalism.<ref>{{cite journal | title = When faith and reason clash: evolution and the Bible | journal = Christian Scholars Review | year = 1991 | first = Alvin | last = Plantinga |author-link= Alvin Plantinga| volume = 21 | issue = 1 | pages = 8–32}}, cited in {{cite book | last = Drees | first = Willem | author-link=Willem B. Drees| title = Religion, Science, and Naturalism | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | year = 1998 | isbn = 0-521-64562-X|page= 159}}</ref>}}


He suggests that generally God uses secondary causes, but miracles may be needed when theistic scientists are unable to find a materialistic explanation. In 1997 he wrote "Why couldn't a scientist think as follows? God has created the world, and of course He created everything in it directly or indirectly. After a great deal of study, we can't see how he created some phenomenon P (life, for example) indirectly; thus probably he has created it directly."<ref name="ncse 18" />
He concludes:
:"....here is absolutely no mystery about why living organisms appear to be the products of intelligent creation, and why scientific naturalists have to work so hard to keep themselves from perceiving the obvious. The reason living things give that appearance is that they actually are what they appear to be, and this fact is evident to all who do not cloud their minds with naturalistic philosophy or some comparable drug."


Plantinga also refers to this concept as Augustinian science, and states that "in doing Augustinian science, you start by assuming the deliverances of the faith, employing them along with anything else you know in dealing with a given scientific problem or project." Plantinga argues for the acceptance of differing worldview-partisan sciences in place of a single common science.<ref name=Stenmark187>Stenmark(2004) pp187-188</ref>
== Theistic realism and theistic naturalism ==


Plantinga employs a ] in assessing the ]. These views have been criticised by Christian physicist ], who rejects the conflict thesis, for relying on "folk exegesis" in his assessment of the bible's teachings on creation. Van Till argues that the problem is not evolution, but its misuse for "naturalistic apologetics".<ref>Pennock(2001) p111</ref>
Johnson asserts that ] is an effort by theists to accommodate to academia by "accepting not just the particular conclusions that scientists have reached by also the naturalistic methodology that generated those conclusions." In essence, theistic naturalists do science as though God didn't exist, but then hold "by faith" that he does. This reasoning draws a strict dichotomy between "faith" and "science" and, according to Johnson, allows for no overlap. Naturally, such a faith is irrelevant to science, and falls to ]. On the contrary, Johnson argues, Theism can only be rational when we allow for the possibility the God physically acting in history. Here Johnson parallels the arguments made by ] as to why they do not remain ]. Nevertheless, the arguments of many mainstream denominations that accept the ] on issues of material origins are in stark contrast to Johnson's theological conceits.


Philosopher and Roman Catholic priest ] also disagrees with Plantinga's call for a theistic science, stating that it should not be considered to be science at all, and suggesting that Plantinga seriously understates the evidential support for ].<ref>Pennock(2001) p112</ref> Plantinga only disagrees with naturalism, not with evolution.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://chronicle.com/article/Evolution-Shibboleths-and/64990/ | title=Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers |publisher=] | date=April 11, 2010 | access-date = 2010-04-28}}</ref>
Johnson argues that ] grounded in theistic realism presents a challenge to philosophical and theistic naturalism:
:"I do not urge scientists to give up on any theory or research agenda until they themselves are convinced that further efforts would be fruitless. In view of the cultural importance of the naturalistic worldview, however, and its status as virtually the official philosophy of government and education, there is a need for informed outsiders to point out that claims are often made in the name of science that go far beyond the available evidence. The public needs to learn to discount those claims, and the scientists themselves need to learn how profoundly their interpretations of the evidence are influenced by their metaphysical preconceptions. IF the resulting embarrassment spurs scientists on to greater achievements, leading to a smashing vindication of their basic viewpoint, then so be it."


==Others==
== Thomism as an antecedent philosophy ==
Similar ideas have been expressed by ] and ] (the latter referring to it as 'Islamic science').<ref>Stenmark(2004), pp188-194</ref>


==Notes==
], the philosophy of ], holds that "Everything that is moving is moved by another." Within Thomistic philosophy, given the existence of something, and the premise that everything that is must be caused by something else, the existence of the universe is proof of the existence of a Creator God, the "unmoved mover," more real than the universe itself, and therefore the sole agent able to set it in motion. To a Thomist, the exploration of the cosmos leads irresistibly back to the Creator, more solid and real than the vaporous universe itself. The evidential relationship of material existence to God can be seen as paralleling theistic realism which demands recognition of God before studying material existence.
{{Reflist}}


==References==
==Scientific criticism of theistic realism==
*{{cite book |first1=Barbara |last1=Forrest |author-link1=Barbara Forrest |first2=Paul R. |last2=Gross |author-link2=Paul R. Gross |title=] |publisher=] |date=8 January 2004 |isbn=0-19-515742-7 }}
*{{cite book | last = Pennock | first = Robert |author-link=Robert T. Pennock | title = Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics | url = https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe | url-access = registration | publisher = MIT Press | location = Cambridge | year = 2001 | isbn = 0-262-66124-1 }}
*{{cite book | last = Stenmark | first = Mikael | title = How to Relate Science and Religion | publisher = W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co | location = Grand Rapids | year = 2004 | isbn = 0-8028-2823-X }}


⚫ ]
Theistic realism as Johnson, a lawyer with no scientific training, describes it is considered to be anti-scientific. Since the goal of science is to describe natural phenomenon in comprehensible ways, scientists try to rely on as limited a number of assumptions as possible. The fundamental tenets summarized in the ] do not require any appeal to supernatural causes or events. Therefore, adding the theistic assumption as a prerequisite for doing science is not only scientifically unnecessary, it is bad form.

For one, the existence of a god or ] is a question that science alone cannot answer since there is no experiment that can be made that can conclusively answer the question. However, since certain descriptions of the hypothesized deity can be and have been scientifically falsified, there is a level to which claims of theistic realists can be tested. For Johnson, using the ] to prove or disprove aspects of the ] and ] God in which he believes is strictly not allowed. The natural consequence of this is that Johnson rejects any universalist statement made about the primacy of ] or ] since there exist conditions whereby all such things can be violated by God. This is diametrically opposed to the ] assumption of science and mathematics. As Johnson has it, then, mathematics and science cannot be done on their own terms and must only be realized in the context of his conception of theism.

As a statement of faith, there is nothing ''a priori'' evident in ] or in ] that requires the rejection of a creator or deity. The existence or lack of existence of a creator is not a fundamental premise for the ability to do scientific research. If the opposite were true, it would be expected that theistic scientists would be more successful than atheistic scientists, but there is no evidence that such is the case. Theistic realism makes the claim that any scientific endeavor which does not explicitly accept a creator as an ''a priori'' premise is doomed to failure. This claim can either be considered to be ] by virtue of the fact that current scientific models do an excellent job at predicitively explaining natural phenomenon without explicitly taking that condition, or it can be considered to be unfalsifiable since the failure can be claimed by the theistic realist will always be on the horizon, though not yet seen (see ]).

Additionally, Johnson's appeal to design arguments (Johnson was the person who coined the term ]) is rejected since it is not scientific. While holding that the grandeur of the universe leading inevitably to the existence of a deity is a statement of faith, it is not an ] observation. Science ultimately remains neutral in such questions of faith since apparent design can be seen in many areas that are not the result intelligent agency. ], for example, gives mechanistic explanations for events that appear superficially to be designated but only rely on ] ].

What is more, many who hold to the basic tenets of theistic realism do a very poor job at explaining natural phenomenon. For example ], ], and ] all rely on miracles and physically impossible models of nature in order to make their view of the created universe compatible with observations. That accepting a theistic realism assumption leads to ] is a good reason for theistic scientists to accept a more accommodating view how to integrate faith and science. Some theistic realists argue that reference to such groups is an example of a ] association since many of these groups base their beliefs on assumptions other than theistic realism, but the critics maintain that it is the ] approach to assumptions like theistic realism that causes the promulgation of pseudoscientific ideas.
{{Creationism}}
]
]
⚫ ]
] ]
] ]
]
] ]

Latest revision as of 21:26, 18 June 2023

Part of a series on
Intelligent design
ClockworkWatchmaker analogy
Concepts
Movement
Campaigns
Authors
Organisations
Reactions
Creationism

Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism, is the pseudoscientific proposal that the central scientific method of requiring testability, known as methodological naturalism, should be replaced by a philosophy of science that allows occasional supernatural explanations which are inherently untestable. Proponents propose supernatural explanations for topics raised by their theology, in particular evolution.

Supporters of theistic realism or theistic science include intelligent design creationism proponents J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer and Phillip E. Johnson.

Instead of the relationship between religion and science being a dialogue, 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", and these concepts lack any mainstream credence.

Johnson

See also: Timeline of intelligent design

In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public school science classes, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. Academic UC Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, a prominent supporter of the law, became convinced that creationists had lost the case because the methodological naturalism used by the scientific community in defining science does not include supernatural processes, and therefore (unfairly, in his opinion) excluded creationism. He concluded that creationists must therefore redefine science to restore the supernatural, and developed the wedge strategy. The intelligent design movement began with the publication of Of Pandas and People in 1989, and Johnson later became its de facto leader.

In his 1995 book Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education, Johnson labelled his position theistic realism which, in contrast to methodological naturalism, assumed "that the universe and all its creatures were brought into existence for a purpose by God. Theistic realists expect this 'fact' of creation to have empirical, observable consequences that are different from the consequences one would observe if the universe were the product of non rational causes". While "God always has the option of working through regular secondary mechanisms" which were often to be seen, "many important questions—including the origin of genetic information and human consciousness—may not be explicable in terms of unintelligent causes".

In an essay written in 1996, Johnson wrote of the intelligent design movement that "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism' — or sometimes, 'mere creation' — as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." Johnson presents theistic realism as a philosophical justification for intelligent design in his book, Reason in the Balance. According to Johnson, true knowledge begins with the acknowledgment of God as creator of the universe, the unifying characteristic of which is that it was created by God. Theistic realism relies on a concept of God which involves the notions that He is real, personal, and acting in the world through mechanistic creationism.

The Wedge Document of 1999 states "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Moreland

Moreland describes theistic science as a research program that is "rooted in the idea that Christians ought to consult all they know or have reason to believe in forming and testing hypotheses, explaining things in science and evaluating the plausibility of various hypotheses, and among the things they should consult are propositions of theology (and philosophy)", and defines its two central propositions as:

  1. "God, conceived of as a personal, transcendent agent of great power and intelligence, has through direct, primary agent causation and indirect, Secondary Causation created and designed the world for a purpose and has directly intervened in the course of its development at various times (including prehistory, history prior to the arrival of human beings)," and
  2. "The commitment expressed in proposition 1 can appropriately enter into the very fabric of the practice of science and the utilization of scientific methodology"

He recommends that the way science is practised should be fundamentally altered to make God's intervention an acceptable scientific explanation, but would not apply this in all areas, as "theologians have little interest in whether a methane molecule has three or four hydrogen atoms". He would see miraculous intervention being needed as God "designed the world for a purpose", and "has directly intervened in the course of its development at various points" which would include "directly creating the universe, first life, the basic kinds of life, and humans".

Plantinga

In a 1991 paper, Plantinga identifies theistic science with creation science:

'Unnatural Science', 'Creation Science,' 'Theistic Science' — call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by that methodological naturalism.

He suggests that generally God uses secondary causes, but miracles may be needed when theistic scientists are unable to find a materialistic explanation. In 1997 he wrote "Why couldn't a scientist think as follows? God has created the world, and of course He created everything in it directly or indirectly. After a great deal of study, we can't see how he created some phenomenon P (life, for example) indirectly; thus probably he has created it directly."

Plantinga also refers to this concept as Augustinian science, and states that "in doing Augustinian science, you start by assuming the deliverances of the faith, employing them along with anything else you know in dealing with a given scientific problem or project." Plantinga argues for the acceptance of differing worldview-partisan sciences in place of a single common science.

Plantinga employs a conflict thesis in assessing the relationship between religion and science. These views have been criticised by Christian physicist Howard J. Van Till, who rejects the conflict thesis, for relying on "folk exegesis" in his assessment of the bible's teachings on creation. Van Till argues that the problem is not evolution, but its misuse for "naturalistic apologetics".

Philosopher and Roman Catholic priest Ernan McMullin also disagrees with Plantinga's call for a theistic science, stating that it should not be considered to be science at all, and suggesting that Plantinga seriously understates the evidential support for evolution. Plantinga only disagrees with naturalism, not with evolution.

Others

Similar ideas have been expressed by George M. Marsden and Mehdi Golshani (the latter referring to it as 'Islamic science').

Notes

  1. ^ Dembski, William (1998). Mere Creation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. p. 315. ISBN 0-8308-1515-5.
  2. Scott, Eugenie C. (2003). "My Favorite Pseudoscience". NCSE. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
  3. ^ Stenmark(2004) pp187-188
  4. ^ Scott, Eugenie C. "The 'science and religion movement': an opportunity for improved public understanding of science?", in Kurtz, Paul (2003). Science and Religion. Buffalo: Prometheus Books. p. 104. ISBN 1-59102-064-6.
  5. ^ Van Till, Howard (June 1995). "Special Creationism in Designer Clothing: A Response to The Creation Hypothesis". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 47 (123). Retrieved 2011-01-21.
  6. ^ Scott, Eugenie C. (1998). "Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18 (2)". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
  7. Scott, Eugenie C. (1998). ""Science and Religion", "Christian Scholarship", and "Theistic Science"". NCSE. Retrieved 5 October 2017.
  8. ^ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. (pdf) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007, Retrieved 2007-06-12.
  9. Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement by Nick Matzke 2004, Retrieved 2007-06-12.
  10. Forrest, Barbara (3 December 2008). "The Wedge at Work". NCSE. Retrieved 5 October 2017.
  11. ^ "What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
  12. Starting a Conversation about Evolution, Phillip E. Johnson, 1996, cited in Forrest&Gross(2004) p315
  13. Plantinga, Alvin (1991). "When faith and reason clash: evolution and the Bible". Christian Scholars Review. 21 (1): 8–32., cited in Drees, Willem (1998). Religion, Science, and Naturalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 159. ISBN 0-521-64562-X.
  14. Pennock(2001) p111
  15. Pennock(2001) p112
  16. "Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers". The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 11, 2010. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
  17. Stenmark(2004), pp188-194

References

Categories: