Talk:Theistic science

Infobox

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

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Pseudoscience

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)

I'm worried about this too. It seems like a category mistake to call a non-scientific view a pseudoscience. Approaching (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is non-science but which is presented as science. The article has "science" in its name and includes a few high profile examples of movements promoting peudoscience (with the pretense of science) like Creation Science, Intelligent Design, Islamic Science, etc. Also of interest: Ernan McMullin also disagrees with Plantinga's call for a theistic science, stating that it should not be considered to be science at all. So we agree that it is not science, but where it pretends to be it crosses into the pseudoscience domain. It seems to me that pseudoscience is an appropriate category. I think that the part about rejection in religion is under the Plantinga section (and the lead sentence has a source, but which I've not read yet). —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"I'm looking at the first source cited for "theistic realism", which is taken to be synonymous with theistic science per this article. The source is the book "Mere Creation" p.315 (an essay by John Mark Reynolds titled God of the Gaps). The source makes it clear that theistic realism (ie theistic science) is not presented as a scientific view but a theological or philosophical view. Describing the view, Reynolds characterizes it as a response by Christian theists to the "God of the Gaps" problem, a response which engenders a philosophical view of the relationship between science and religion. I quote:

Recently a fourth response has become popular. Philip E. Johnson labeled it "theistic realism" in Reason in the Balance (Johnson 1995). A group of thinkers who may have little or nothing to say about the putative harmony of Genesis and biology may have suggested that modern science, when it is not view through the lens of naturalistic metaphysics, supports the idea of God's direct intervention in the natural world. Nonetheless they deny that they are guilty of the God-of-the-gaps argument. (Mere Creation p. 315)

This description of "theistic realism" bears all the hallmarks of a philosophical view and not a scientific view. In addition I can also confirm a very similar view endorsed by Eugenie C. Scott in his essay as cited in the article. Scott says "Theistic Science" is an effort to move science away from methodological materialism and allow in the occasional supernatural explanation..." This is not a scientific claim but a philosophical claim about the view, methods, and interpretations of science. Can you review these sources and get back to me? Thanks. Approaching (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly not a philosophical view, but rather an obvious continuation of the ongoing effort of young-earth creationists to rename their pseudoscience as science and education rejects it under the old names. Creationism becomes Creation Science become Intelligent Design becomes Theistic realism, but is is still the same old pseudoscience wearing new clothes. See Timeline of intelligent design and Wedge strategy. Also see The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream (Chapter 1 of the book Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (MIT Press, 2001). and Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross (Oxford, 2004). --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I would also note that Approaching appears to be a creationist,[1][2][3] that Reason in the Balance is published by Christian publisher InterVarsity Press, and that the author's other works include Darwin On Trial, An Easy-to-Understand Guide for Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Darwinism Defeated, and most significantly, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon. I'm not a creationist. I believe in evolution, from abiogenesis to common descent, and stand with most if not all mainstream scientists on relevant issues. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and I believe in the Big Bang. I don't know where you are getting the false information that I am a creationist, and I want to encourage against your false and sloppy accusations, and your use of such poorly sourced accusations as an implied litmus test against editors on Wikipedia, which is a form of prejudice.

I also want to mention that the relevant sources I've raised in my comment come from the article at the time of my comment, and have not been introduced by me. I also have no problem, in principle, with appealing to such sources, when appropriate. If there is a problem with appropriately using such sources, especially in characterizing their own views, you have not shown the problem.

And finally, you state "This is clearly not a philosophical view, but rather an obvious continuation of the ongoing effort of young-earth creationists..." I won't speak to the motivations of young earth creationists, or anybody else. My interest is in laying out the view as accurately as possible, regardless of motivations. With that in mind, I'd like to point out that there is nothing about the efforts of young earth creationists that precludes a view from being philosophical (and indeed not being a scientific view). Could you explain precisely what your criteria are for judging something to be a philosophical view and why this isn't it? Would you say, instead, that it is a scientific view? You're evidently a devout and valiant warrior against creationism, but the question at hand is whether this view is properly classed as "science and not philosophy" or "philosophy and not science", and your comments on this latter question is what matters. Thanks. —[Approaching] (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I will take you at your word that you are not a creationist, and apologize for saying that you were.

The answer to your question is in the article: "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." "Tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science" is a scientific claim, not a philosophical claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for retracting the accusations. They were making civil discussion difficult. I want to say a couple things about the passage you quoted.

You are right in saying that there is a scientific component to the claim in the quote. But it is not a scientific claim, but an "interpretive gloss" on scientific data. Why do I say that?

Because it looks very similar in form to the "interpretive gloss" invoked in another area of science: the interpretation of quantum mechanics. All the interpretations of QM are empirically equivalent, but appear within different metaphysical models due to a different interpretive gloss. If you look closely, none of these interpretations are themselves scientific. At best an advocate of one interpretation can claim their interpretation is correct, and therefore, the evidence of QM fits with their interpretation. "Theistic realism" or "theistic science" seems to be making a very similar move. Much like interpretations of QM, it is an interpretive gloss, or a philosophical or methodological approach on science.

Multiple points of evidence suggest this: (i) "Theistic realism" or "theistic science" offers no novel predictions, nor makes any scientific hypotheses, nor positions itself in contrast or competition against any other scientific claim. This lack of attempt at making any scientific hypothesis or prediction undermines the claim that it is scientific. (ii) Just like interpretations of quantum mechanics, TR/TS appears to be an "interpretive gloss" on the existing data, as the rest of the essay indicates. (iii) TR/TS takes itself to compete with methodological naturalism, which is a philosophical approach/interpretive gloss. This points to it being philosophical. (iv) The essay says the reasons for invoking God are "philosophic and theological..." (p.315). (v) Separately, Johnson and Plantinga are reported to make the case for "theistic science", one more, by appealing to philosophical presuppositions, and in contrast to methodological naturalism (cf. Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts by David Ray Griffin, pp. 46-). I quote: "At the heart of the proposal by Plantinga and Johnson is their argument that there is no good reason to continue to assume that science, to be science, must exclude reference to divine agency." This is the most paradigmatic example of a philosophical presupposition that you can hope for. The same book, on p.48 explicitly contrasts "theistic science" vs "methodological atheism". Methodological atheism is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical or methodological assumption of science.

Let me know what you think. I'm especially interested if you have anything in particular that you think undermines these points. —[Approaching] (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

All the interpretations of QM are empirically equivalent, but appear within different metaphysical models due to a different interpretive gloss. If you look closely, none of these interpretations are themselves scientific. At best an advocate of one interpretation can claim their interpretation is correct, and therefore, the evidence of QM fits with their interpretation. I don't agree that these interpretations would no longer be scientific if they continued to explain observations, make predictions and permit progress/investigation (other than of course quantum mysticism).
At the heart of the proposal by Plantinga and Johnson is their argument that there is no good reason to continue to assume that science, to be science, must exclude reference to divine agency and "theistic science" vs "methodological atheism" are indeed interesting philosophical propositions, but if science was not methodological (it does not have to be atheist, but should expand knowledge and understanding of nature), how would it continue to be science and to progress if the mysterious, or that which may question the sacred, also was the God of the gaps, possibly considered holy and intengible, or taboo?
This is where in the case of ID for instance, denial of evolution must occur. Should ID become acceptable as "theistic science" and restrict the boundaries which can be explored? This is not scientific development (but pseudoscience, if it claims to be scientific). —PaleoNeonate – 07:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I completely reject the last seven words of "All the interpretations of QM are empirically equivalent, but appear within different metaphysical models due to a different interpretive gloss. If you look closely, none of these interpretations are themselves scientific." those words are untrue for the same reason why the statement "Theistic Science is not a scientific claim but a philosophical claim" is untrue. Again I refer you to The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream (Chapter 1 of the book Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (MIT Press, 2001). and Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross (Oxford, 2004).

Nobody here is agreeing with you. I suggest that you follow the advice in my esaay at WP:1AM. I am unwilling to debate this with you any further unless I see at least one other person who supports your position. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The "evolution warriors" accusation I recently read at an AfD against proper policy-based deletion arguments explains a lot, unfortunately. This will also end the discussion for me per WP:NOTFORUM since we seem to be chatting about philosophy instead of improving the article. I'll just end with an invitation to read: Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory, and evidence of common descent. —PaleoNeonate – 09:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing some misunderstandings here. Let me try to clarify. @PaleoNeonate: when you say "these interpretations would no longer be scientific if they continued to explain observations...", the reality is that interpretations have never done any actual explanation or prediction- that was never their job. To see this, first notice that there are two layers in QM: The mathematical formalism, and the physical interpretation. The mathematical formalism does all the scientific work (hypothesis-testing, prediction-making, etc). The interpretations play no role in scientific explanation or prediction, but instead serve to link the mathematics (numbers) to the rest of our physical models (waves, particles, etc). There are a dozen or so interpretations that do this job, and fit the data. See the relevant Wikipedia article on interpretations of quantum mechanics to verify this.

If you see how the interpretation sits on top and does no scientific work, then you understand the role that "theistic science/theistic realism" plays in this situation: It serves to interpret the scientific data, but does no scientific work on its own. They are philosophical "lenses" through which to interpret scientific data.

You also ask "but if science was not methodological (it does not have to be atheist, but should expand knowledge and understanding of nature), how would it continue to be science and to progress if the mysterious, or that which may question the sacred, also was the God of the gaps, possibly considered holy and intengible, or taboo?" All sides agree science should be methodological. But the disagreement, at least in philosophy of science, is whether scientific methods should, as part of the methodology: (a) rule out the possibility of divine intervention at all, or (b) be open to the possibility of divine intervention, if it ever happens. This is a question even atheistic philosophers of science ask, because in theory, if a God exists, but you rule out any divine explanations, then your science has inadequate explanatory resources to account for all possible findings (the example is used of a scientist seeing "God exists, believe in me" written in the sky, but being forced to find a naturalistic explanation, because his methodology rules out any supernatural explanations). The bottom line is, this dispute is an important one in philosophy of science, even among atheists, but it's not, properly speaking, a scientific question (you can't test it as a hypothesis, it is a methodological presupposition).

If you get all this, you'll see how the whole notion of "theistic science" appears to be a methodological presupposition, and methodological presuppositions are assumptions that scientists start with. They are not the result of scientific experiments.

@Guy Macon: You said you disagree, but I'm not seeing any reasons why. I've provided copious explanations why you are mistaken, while you rely on an appeal to popularity. If you can't provide any explanation, that's fine. You can just concede the point. —[Approaching] (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your ham-handed attempt to stuff words in my mouth will not change my decision to no longer debate with you. Nobody agrees with you. Please go away. And please stop pinging me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Approaching, if theistic science were called theistic meanderings or theistic philosophy your arguments might have some merit, but it ain't. It's simply another term used by cdesign proponentsists in attempts to promote ID pseudoscience. What scientists start with is methodology applied to nature, TS is a theological attempt to evade that while still claiming scientific credence for legal reasons – hence pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 22:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right about this: the name implies a science. And I also think it's reasonable to see the word "science" in the name and infer "science" as a category. But I think the editor's duty also requires looking past the name, and describing a view for what it is (don't we do exactly this when we call it a pseudoscience?). If you agree that we need to look past the name, you'll see that I've offered several lines of evidence, from the content of the view, that make the case for it being philosophy, not science.

Secondly, I want to point out another problem with relying on the name. Essentially, the inference being drawn is 'the name includes the word "science"' -> 'the named entity is understood to be a science, in a narrow sense'. The problem is, there are a lot of things with the name "science" that aren't sciences, narrowly understood. Computer science, for instance, or political science. The term is used in many different ways and thus the word 'science' cannot be a reliable guide to scientific status.

Let me know if this resolves some of the issues. —[Approaching] (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:NOTAFORUM, please find rolevant sources for discussion rather than your own thoughts. Secondly, context is important. See Timeline of intelligent design, going back to the 1920s: Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy and anti-evolution state laws to stop U.S. public schools from teaching evolution, boosted by reaction against the 1959 National Defense Education Act, and the reformulation of anti-science as creation science, pseudoscience promoted as a rival to science education, subsequently relabelled as ID. Theistic science appears there as theistic realism. Maybe worth adding that link for background to this article. . dave souza, talk

Done. Also, clarification that Edwards v. Aguillard was about a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public school science classes – if it had been taught in comparative religion classes, or perhaps even philosophy classes, that would have been different. . . dave souza, talk 06:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First, let's keep our eye on the ball. We're not debating evolution versus creationism here, nor intelligent design. The question is very specific: Is "theistic realism" aka "theistic science" a scientific notion or a philosophical notion? The context you've offered is interesting and relevant to the article as a whole, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the question in bold.

Second, I've stated that I'm convinced the idea (ie "theistic science" aka "theistic realism") is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical claim about science. I've listed a range of sources and quotes that you will find earlier in the discussion in support of this view. Please go back and look at all of them. They have been left unaddressed so far.

Let's keep the focus on the question at hand. —Approaching (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's instead stop the sea lioning. http://wondermark.com/1k62/ --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::You've referred to Reason in the Balance (Johnson 1995) and Mere Creation, both primary texts promoting ID creationism with the claim that science is mean in excluding religion, so what we need is religion dressed up as pseudoscience. You've also found something in Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts. This review summarises its thesis as "the perceived conflict between science and religion is based upon a double mistake-the assumption that religion requires supernaturalism and that scientific naturalism requires atheism and materialism." Yep, that pretty much sums up the mistakes made by ID and hence by theistic science. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. And how does that refute the notion that "theistic science" is a philosophical claim and not a scientific one? I've given you guys plenty of time to come up with some coherent response here. Until you can provide some clear reason why we should think this is a scientific claim, we seem to have no grounds to treat it as such. —Approaching (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. We don't have to "refute" your theory to your satisfaction. You have to convince someone else. Which you have completely and utterly failed to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You said earlier that you were refusing to debate with me. Now you're debating with me. I'm sensing some incoherence in your position here. I'm also sensing a lot of anger. Can you be more clear about what's going on? —Approaching (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a sealion. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

—Approaching, I am not debating you. I am mocking you. Did you imagine that you are the first person to try sealioning on Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) -

Can you please stop trolling and mocking people on here who are trying to have a constructive discussion about the article? My questions are all aimed towards either getting clearer on disagreements related to the article, or resolving personal disputes so that we can get back to resolving disagreements related to the article. I'd like to return to those priorities and not to trolling and mocking, please and thanks. —Approaching (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a Sea Lion.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, saying "my philosophical argument is that science must include supernatural causes" is a mere insistence on pseudoscience. For working definitions, it's well covered by McLean v. Arkansas#McLean v. Arkansas ruling. I've reverted a revision which was clearly against consensus. . . dave souza, talk 09:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't address the issue. The issue is whether we have any basis to call "theistic science" a scientific claim. Clearly you can't rely on the name. The sources in the article all indicate it is a philosophical claim. The Wikipedia article (McLean v. Arkansas) doesn't even appear to mention the term "theistic science". We need a clear and coherent argument here. Can I ask you what you are relying on for your definition of "theistic science"? —Approaching (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My dear, you seem to have this inverted; theistic science is clearly a relabelling or offshoot of ID pseudoscience, itself a relabelling of creation science, with the same proponents and arguments, and WP:MNA applies. The sources you've suggested are primary sources or a restatement of unreliable primary source position, and WP:SOURCES requires a basis on reliable third-party sources. . . dave souza, talk 16:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
p.s. Genie's 2003 essay may help: Scott, Eugenie C. (2003). "My Favorite Pseudoscience". NCSE. Retrieved 4 October 2017. – note it's not "his essay". . . dave souza, talk 16:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi dave. Have you read the very article you're citing? It doesn't characterize "theistic science" as an offshoot or relabelling- it doesn't use either of those words a single time in the article. Rather, the article says (as I do), that "theistic science" is meant to compete with "methodological naturalism". Here's a direct quote from the article you're citing: "Recognizing that methodological naturalism is the standard of modern science, ID proponents argue that it should be scuttled, and replaced with what they call “theistic science”, which possesses the enviable ability to invoke the occasional miracle when circumstances seem to require it (Scott 1998)." Methodological naturalism is not a scientific claim, but a (legitimate, in my opinion) philosophical claim about scientific practice. Ergo, any positions that challenge or compete with methodological naturalism are also philosophical and not scientific claims. The logic here is quite straightforward. The facts are verifiable, and are found in your own source. Why don't you accept the claims of your own source, that this view, "theistic science", is a philosophical and not a scientific claim? —Approaching (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it your contention that any claim that is philosophical rather than scientific in nature cannot possibly be pseudoscientific? jps (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Approaching is indeed correct, that theistic science is itself a philosophical proposal about the methods of science, not a scientific one. Not one person here addressed his arguments, apart from various red herrings, which is unfortunate. Thus, the misleading introduction will be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.31.64 (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The Terrible Sea Lion

Panel 1: Man and woman in open car. From their dress and the car it looks like somewhere around the year 1900.

Woman: I don't mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions.

Man: Don't say that out loud![5]

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's clear you're upset about something, Guy. I wish you were willing to talk it out so that we can resolve the issue instead of you posting these kinds of comments, which are quite disruptive. In fact, these comments get in the way of productive discourse and finding a solution on this article. Please, consider talking about the problem and finding a solution. —Approaching (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Panel 2: A large sea lion appears behind them.

Sea lion: Pardon me, I couldn't help but overhear...

Man: Now you've done it.[6]

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, have it your way - you heard a seal bark! . . dave souza, talk 16:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sea lion: I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing a sea lion has ever done to you?[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) -

Plantinga and Scott

[8] 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)

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 Plantinga (1997). "Methodological Naturalism". asa3.org., From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154.
As commented by Ruse, M. (2009). The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Harvard University Press. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-674-04297-1., "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)