Talk:Evolution Theology

Merger ???
No, but I will be editing this article and try to include reference to ET

Merger proposal
This article and The Great Story seem to be duplicates of each other. I suggest a merger with Great Story redirecting here. Please add comments below.Lumos3 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As one who contributed to both The Great Story page and the Evolution Theology page, but other than this, do not have much experience on the wikipedia, I agree that the redundancy is unnecessary. "Evolution Theology" has become the preferred name for this movement in the media. Since "The Great Story" and "Evolution Theology" both point to the same basic worldview and movement, I agree with the proposal to merge the two and have The Great Story redirect to Evolution Theology. ~ Michael Dowd 75.214.83.113 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is no longer similar to The Great Story page. It was my laziness in the first place, by essentially cut and pasting The Great Story page to create this page, that caused much of the problem. Now it makes no sense to merge these two. I've reinstated the Great Story page as it was before the redirect. MBDowd (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Thoughts on the Page
I think it was right to merge in/redirect The Great Story.

With references, I would keep references tied to "Evolution Theology" as a phrase.

For example:


 * Evolutionary Theology -- a wired article that uses the phrase

After reading this page, it's still not clear to me: "What is Evolution Theology?"

Is it a social movement? Is it the message of Michael Dowd & Connie Barlow?  Is it a genre of literature (an active Theology?)

On the surface, it seems that working on or expanding religious naturalism (say) could be more appropriate.

But if Evolution Theology is different, or notably different, then it would justify this separate page.

Another way to put it is: "What are the ideas, that should be edited into Wikipedia?", before asking, "Where should they go?  What should they be called?"

It is clear to me that there is a movement in philosophical / religious thought, including all the named people, and also that these people named in the article know of each other and talk with each other. (There are numerous, though not always easy to find, cross-references between them, out on the web, and in published literature.)

It's also clear to me that this movement is large, significant, distinct, and notable. (Though most of these people and their readers aren't "net" people.)

I'm just trying to figure out how to properly represent this in Wikipedia, because there's no doubt in my mind that it is worthy of inclusion.

LionKimbro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference also: The Great Story, 2nd nomination, Article for deletion.

LionKimbro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge This Into Religious Naturalism article
I agree with the suggestion that this article describes a particular school of thought within the more general category of religious naturalism. I would think that merging the (verifiable) content from this article into the sections that discuss important texts in religious naturalism and the varieties of religious naturalism would suffice to cover this topic. Franziska (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge: I think that such a merger would be justified. There is insufficient (read 'no') verifiable information to establish any notability for this topic, let alone distinguish it from 'religious naturalism'. The only problem is that, lacking any sources, there is no verifiable information to merge, so unless some sources can be found, the 'merge' would likely devolve into a redirect. But then again, I don't know how much information in this article is actually worth saving. HrafnTalkStalk 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge: I suggest not merging it with religious naturalism. "Evolution Theology" is a relatively new term, used mostly by my wife and I during our programs and in radio, TV, and print interviews, and mostly just during the last year. We've been using it as a way to point to a wide range of attempts to synthesize or integrate or reconcile science and religion.  Some who feel quite comfortable with "evolution theology" or "evolutionary theology" would not necessarily identify with "religious naturalism" (For example, theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins and Owen Gingrich.) Evolution Theology seems to be the preferred term the media like to use as a way of speaking about those who embrace a "third-way" beyond the ID/Creationist - New Atheist impasse. Here are a few examples, all referencing my wife's and my ministry because that's what we do - permanently travel the country popularizing our brand of synthesis. But we also point out in all our talks that others integrate evolution and theology in very different ways than we do, and we think that's great.

MBDowd (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC) MBDowd (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary Theology: How to Love God and Science - Wired News 12/04/07
 * Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin - Wired 12/06/07
 * Science Meets Religion ... Amicably? - Tucson Weekly 02/04/0
 * America's Evolutionary Evangelist Michael Dowd Sedona.biz 02/04/08
 * Science meets belief as couple put evolution in a sacred context San Diego Union Tribune | 02/23/08
 * Preacher to tell O.C. church Thank God for Evolution Orange County Register | 02/24/08
 * Evangelist sees hand of God in evolution Oakland Tribune | 03/24/08
 * Preacher says evolution and theology mix The Oregonian | 04/11/08
 * Unconventional gospel: Self-described 'evolutionary creationist' Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | 05/27/08
 * Evangelist spreads science-friendly gospel Erie Times News | 05/31/08


 * Comment: WP:NEO would appear to apply. Although we have evidence of Dowd himself using this neologism in interviews, we don't have anything in the way of scholarly analysis to support an article on the subject. I would also suggest that it is inappropriate, per WP:COI, for User:MBDowd to be participating in the consideration of this merge (or editing this article at all for that matter). HrafnTalkStalk 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment: all of these articles are on Dowd himself (can we say "self-promotion" Michael?). They don't establish that anybody other than Dowd uses this term, or that it has notability beyond Dowd's own personal notability. It might therefore be appropriate to merge to Michael Dowd. A quick look at that article's history shows that Dowd likewise created & has since edited that article (another violation of WP:COI). HrafnTalkStalk 07:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hrafn: Clearly I don't know how to use the wikipedia. I thought it was my responsibility to create a page on myself. I apologize for not carefully reading the guidlines at the start. I'm just learning this game. MBDowd (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As this discussion has fallen silent, and as there wasn't any dissenting opinion, I've taken the liberty of redirecting this article to Michael Dowd, per my above comment. HrafnTalkStalk 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)