ADVERTISEMENTS

Both Larry Moran and Mike Haubrich have favorably mentioned this article: "The Untenability of Theistic Evolution (2009)" by Bart Klink. I'm afraid I find it wanting in many ways, but there is no real need to go beyond this:

This is a basic misunderstanding of what TE is and/or what the methodological naturalism of science is. The very reason it is called "methodological naturalism" is that it applies specifically to the methodology of science. TE, on the other hand, is not science, it is a theological position concerning one possible theistic reaction to the results of science. A theological position need not apply the scientific method to itself.

Thus, someone adhering to TE doesn't have to exclude consideration of any supernatural intervention during creation as part of the theology; he or she (in accordance with TE) only needs to exclude supernaturalism from scientific explanations of nature (i.e. apply the scientific methodology to science).

The theology of TE can well be criticized as a species of "God in the gaps" or because it doesn't take the Bible as seriously as Mr. Klink thinks it should but, frankly, I'm as uninterested in atheists' theological musings as I am in theists'.

And to ask "[w]hy not simply speak of purely naturalistic evolution" is kinda missing the point of theology, isn't it?

TE may or may not suck as theology ... but as logic and philosophy it is at least consistent, just as (grudgingly) Mr. Klink admits it is consistent with science (even if not all adherents of TE are).

As far as I'm concerned, the latter point makes it superior theology ... as those things go*.
_______________________________

* Compare it, for example, to the Creation Letter Project Mike refers to.
.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.