Talk:Theistic science/Archive 1

Absence of neutrality
All (two) sources of the article are anti-theist organizations; a neutral article on theism must have 50% of his sources from the side that is studied —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.145.19 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Retry for editting
Okay, Ungtss, I'm going to retry editting this page from square one. I've started by adding a few edits to the intro with the following intentions: 1) describing theistic realism as a concept that involved theism and realism but perhaps in different forms. I do not see a direct connection between Johnson's conception and Gutek's conception, we may consider doing disambig if necessary, but for now I've tried to keep the definitions separate and informed. Please let me know what you think of the intro and what you would want to do differently. Joshuaschroeder 15:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * let's try and understand what this is first. the intro needs to define it as accurately as possible, straight away.  What is theistic realism that's not described in the intro as is?  we've definitely got a number of complex and interrelated ideas, but they all revolve around the idea that all knowledge leads to god (both gutek and johnson) and that god is real and personal (both gutek and johnson).  that's why those two are in the intro.  If you can think of a clearer and more concise way to define it, please propose it here so we can work on explaining this idea.  Ungtss 15:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added tags
I've added both the cleanup tag and the totally disputed tag. The cleanup tag is needed because the article is still very poor with respect to grammar and descriptions of the issues. The totally disputed tag is there because the article is not NPOV yet and there is something of a false conflation between Gutek's and Johnson's conceptions of the term. Joshuaschroeder 15:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * cleanup tags are to notify editors that a page needs cleanup when the page is stagnating. we're here, and the page is under active development.  if you think the page needs cleanup, then clean it up, according to the style guide.  Ungtss 15:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's being editted by the "usual suspects" rather, isn't it? The benefit of tags is that it may attract fresh eyeballs to the task.  And I think it does indeed need cleaning up, as I've been saying pretty much since it's been created, though it's improved in content somewhat, it must be acknowledged.  In particular, I think the intro, and hence the whole article, is rather unclear in definitional terms.  Is the scope TR as used to describe Acquinas' philosophy?  As used by Johnson?  Is it asserting the equivalent of the two?  Spelling out the differences (if any) between the two, and/or the history of the term?  As it stands, the article reads a lot like an article on the Johnsonian use, with some rather grafted-on justifications as to why it's not just limited to that.  Alai 17:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * excellent points. i'll add the cleanup tag to the talkpage to attract new eyes without marring the page itself.  as to your excellent observations, as i understand it, TR describes a distinct philosophy that's been held by a string of thinkers from aquinas on.  i think that all the quotes at the end illustrate that same idea -- that theistic realism is broader than both johnson and aquinas -- it's a philosophy in its own right.  i just spent most of the article on johnson because he articulated it most recently.  you've always made excellent edits to these pages -- i'd welcome your constructive and clarifying edits here.  Ungtss 23:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Acquinas' position is to be distinguished from "theistic naturalism" -- which may purely be my faulty understanding, but what's more to the point I don't see how one could see this from the current article.  If A.'s definition differs from PJ's, the article should make this fact (and the intended scope) clear.  If the two are identical, why's this not simply a redirect to Thomism?  As it stands, one might get the impression that the two are basically the same, but PJ has far more interesting things to say on the topic than Acquinas ever did.  Alai 04:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying what's missing. i think you're right.  i'm gonna try again, and lemme know how i do:).  Ungtss 15:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * how did i do? Ungtss 17:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Alai, but the article as it stands right now is in terrible shape. It is poorly written, makes claims I cannot verify, and seems to be very sweeping with respect to the impact of theistic realism when we know it is a fairly small number of people who actually talk about this thing as existing. So I think we really need to be clear as to what exactly this article is about -- it shouldn't be just your conception of theistic realism which is what it is turning out to be. I know you are a fan of Chesterton and Lewis, but that doesn't justify your inclusion of them just whenenver you feel like it. Joshuaschroeder 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i think you need to read aquinas, lewis, and chesterton (both of who wrote extensively on thomism) and get back to me, so you can be a constructive editor on this page. the comments on the vfd regarding your behavior tell it all.  please.  wikipedia is a big place.  go write about something you know about.  Ungtss 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to let your ignorance of the subjects you claim to be an expert in stifle development of the encyclopedia, Ungtss. You're going to have to learn to work with those you dislike. Joshuaschroeder 04:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i never claimed to be an expert. i'm trying to research and summarize this topic from a number of sources.  your nitpicking nonsense doesn't help.  read about the stuff and come up with constructive and creative ways to synthesize and summarize in ways that help the reader understand the ideas involved.  Ungtss 05:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Brilliant. Give it time and we'll have more creationist articles than AiG! Keep up the good work. Grace Note 15:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not the goal of Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 15:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The goal of wikipedia is "the sum total of human knowledge." that takes us to the point of writing articles about each cat in The Simpsons.  It should at least take us to the point of summarizing published philosophical positions on issues of profound importance.  Ungtss 22:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The goal of wikipedia isn't, however, to present the sum total of human opinions. We need to separate the knowledge from the opinionated work. So far, this page looks like a minefield of opinions and very little in the way of stated fact. Joshuaschroeder 15:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * all philosophy is opinion, schroeder. you wanna describe a philosophy, you gotta describe opinions.  Ungtss 02:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Philosophy is just notable opinions, though. Anybody you meet has their own philosophy. Everybody's personal philosophy is not encyclopedic. Joshuaschroeder 04:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * philosophies which have been published and discussed by multiple authors pro and con, debated at stanford, and become the basis of coursework are notable. that's what the voters in the VfD pointed out.  Ungtss 05:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Editorial dispute
I'm adding an editorial dispute message to the top of the page. When the editorial dispute is worked out then we can delete the temp page. Alai -- can you check out that version and offer criticism of it, maybe let us know what parts should be included in the final version and which parts shouldn't. There are so many differences between the two versions, it is almost impossible to find parallels, and so the archived discussion above contains some of those wranglings between the usual supsects. Joshuaschroeder 15:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * there are a lot of published criticisms of TR available on the web, schroeder. you could raise article quality significantly if you cited and summarized them rather than conducting your own personal research -- if you did that, there would be no need for a rebuttal.  Ungtss 17:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Tit for tat editting makes no sense to me. Your "rebuttal" read like a temper tantrum and wasn't a crticism per se of content but rather of style. Fine. If you think you can write a criticisms section better than I can, please do so. I would welcome your contribution in that regard. Joshuaschroeder 15:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * what you call "tit for tat" i call "balance." you wrote a temper tantrum of your own, about topics way beyond the scope of the article, totally unreferenced, stated as fact, and then wouldn't let me try and pick up the pieces after you.  Ungtss 03:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for citations
Ungtss is fond of saying that he only wants well-researched and cited information in the article. Okay, it's time to ask. I'm just going to start with the intro:

Citation request I

 * "Theistic realism is a philosophy based on the idea that God is real, acts in the universe, and is knowable through the senses and reason."
 * Can you give us a cite to where this definition is used and the context? I think it is problematic in that it is too narrow, actually. Theistic realism of Aquinas doesn't state, according to Gutek, that God is knowable through the senses (accidents) but through the true knowledge of being (substance). So I fail to see how that is reasonable. Also, "theism" is the philosophy based on the idea that "God is real", so shouldn't that first bit be "a philosophy based on theism"?
 * <>
 * To aquinas, all knowledge begins in the senses, and proceeds to reason to knowledge of god. he was an empiricist.  have a look at thomism and empiricism.
 * Irrelevent. Scholasticism has a lot to say about true "knowledge" that is different from the Platonic definition.
 * why is it irrelevent? to aquinas, all knowledge begins in the senses, and through proper reasoning, leads to knowledge of the christian god.  that's all the text says.  what's your problem?  Ungtss 02:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * <<"theism" is the philosophy based on the idea that "God is real", so shouldn't that first bit be "a philosophy based on theism"?>>
 * are you suggesting we make our definition self-referential? Theistic realism is theistic?  What would the point of that be, when "the existence of god" is precise and clear.  Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting we make our definition in the standard form of defitinions: "Theistic realism is a type of theism that..."
 * it's not a type of theism, schroeder. "theistic" modifies "realism."  did you bother to read gutek?  types of theism include "monotheism, polytheism, henotheism" ... Ungtss 02:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Belief in a deity is a type of theism. This is a type of theism that believes there is evidence for the deity in the phenomena of the natural world, isn't it? Joshuaschroeder 04:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * you're mixing up your categories again, just like with geocentrism and creationism. The types of theism refer to a number of beliefs about the nature and number of God.  Theistic realism is a philosophy addressing the issue of how God and the universe coexist and interact.  Theistic realism may be monotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, deistic, or whatever, and still be theistic realism.  it is not a type of theism.  Ungtss 05:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Note you did not give a response to my request. Joshuaschroeder 19:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * what response do you want? i have 2 cited books and a course syllabus that say exactly what i'm saying.  the course syllabus has a reading list a mile long.  stop bullying and grow up.  Ungtss 02:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a page number from those books that makes the above definition or one similar enough so that we can move on? Joshuaschroeder 04:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * schroeder, if we can't agree that all of the cited sources on theistic realism can be summarized in the phrase, "Theistic realism is a philosophy based on the idea that God is real, acts in the universe, and is knowable through the senses and reason," then there is no reason to go further. i'm not gonna go back to the library and pick up the books so i can get you a friggin' page number.  that's what all the texts are about.  Ungtss 05:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Citation request II

 * "As such, theistic realism stands as a middle ground between philosophical naturalism and fideism."
 * Can you give a cite of some author or reference that holds this to be true? And furthermore, isn't "theistic naturalism" also in this camp?
 * Do you dispute that it is true? Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. I dispute that it is a middle ground. I think it may not be in the spectrum defining the two at all. Joshuaschroeder 19:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * well that's nice, but can you explain why you think it may be something else than what it actually is? i think the texts clearly support my argument.  please explain why you think theistic realism is something else again.  Ungtss 02:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a place in Gutek's book that places theistic realism between the two arguments. I haven't found any. Philip Johnson doesn't mention fideism in Reason in the Balance that I can see, but please tell me the page number so I can look it up. Joshuaschroeder 04:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i am telling you that i am not your librarian, and i will only go over to the library and waste my life looking up page numbers for you if you can demonstrate, in good faith, that there is grounds to believe the above statement does not summarize all the readings you've been ignoring. Ungtss 05:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification request

 * "While philosophical naturalism holds that the universe is self-explanatory, theistic realism holds that the universe can only be comprehensively explained with reference to God."
 * Can you be more specific? Obviously it isn't the whole universe. One can characterize lightning perfectly fine with only appeal to Maxwell's Equations and electrons -- no God necessary. Or is it an argument based on first cause? Again, I think this sentence needs more clarity.
 * how would you suggest clarifying it, based on your indepth and open-minded research on the topic? Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we say that "theistic realism holds that evidence and reason lead inevitably to belief in God" as you said below. This is more balanced in my view. Joshuaschroeder 19:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * it's more than that. read the course syllabus.  it explicitly holds that the universe cannot explain itself, but can only be comprehensively explained with something outside the universe.  Ungtss 02:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification request II

 * "While fideism holds that reason and evidence cannot lead to God, theistic realism holds that the design and works of God are manifestly evident in nature, particularly Creation, so that evidence and reason lead inevitably to belief in God."
 * What's the difference between "creation" and "nature"? Are you refering to the "act of creation"? If that is the case, how is the "act of creation" manifestly evident in nature? What citation are you using to back this up? Can you provide a citation to someone claiming that "evidence and reason lead inevitably to belief in God"?
 * St. Paul, Aquinas, G.K. Chesteron, C.S. Lewis, and Johnson all believe that evidence and reason lead inevitably to belief in God. a difference is drawn between nature and creation, because some aspects of the functioning of nature can be explained with reference to nature itself, but the origin of nature cannot.  Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a citation of this distinction made by someone other than yourself?
 * answers in genesis distinguishes between "origins science" and "operational science."   operational science relates to the function of nature -- it's repeatable and testable.  origins science relates to the origin of nature -- it is not.  and per answers in genesis and all us other crazy creationists, the origin of nature cannot be explained without God.  Ungtss 02:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * AiG says that there is a difference between origins and operational science. Fine, that's AiG -- but are they theistic realism supporters? More than this, where is the evidence that each of these authors makes draws such a difference between nature and creation. Please, provide your sources. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i gave you the source. the distinction is clear as day in the text.  you're ignoring reality again, schroeder.  Ungtss 05:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Arguments from Romans

 * "The basic tenets of theistic realism have been held by a number of philosophers throughout time under different names and different degrees of sophistication. Many of its arguments were articulated by St. Paul in the biblical book of Romans."
 * Many of its arguments, or only one? Can you spell out the arguments here and show how Romans covers many of them?
 * I'll do that. Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Aquinas and others

 * "It was further systematized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the philosophy of Thomism, and later by writers such as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis."
 * Can you state citations that show that Chesterton and Lewis systematized theistic realism?
 * read Abolition of Man by lewis and Aquinas by Chesterton for a start. Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Irrelevent. We need cited sources that claim that theistic realism was "systematized" by Aquinas and the others. Joshuaschroeder 19:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * what do you mean irrelevent? they wrote on all the relevent topics, and gutek explicitly says that aquinas systemitized theistic realism.  why do you insist on writing about things you know nothing about?  Ungtss 02:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please tell me exactly where Gutek says Aquinas "systematized" theistic realism. Give the page number and the exact quote. Joshuaschroeder 04:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * gutek attributes theistic realism to aquinas. it doesn't get much more systematized than that.  i'm not here to be your librarian.  if you think gutek says something different, then tell me what you think gutek says.  Ungtss 05:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Conflation problems

 * "These ideas have recently been labeled "Theistic Realism" by a number of academics, including Phillip E. Johnson, Gerald L. Gutek, and professors at Baylor College of Medicine."
 * The conflation of Johnson and Gutek is a major problem. They have different conceptions of theistic realism. Gutek makes no mention of the creation-evolution debate nor does he reference intelligent design as being an inevitability of theistic realism that he conceives. Also, can you provide a reference to the baylor professors, maybe giving their names instead to this vaguery?
 * gutek makes no reference to the creation-evolution debate, but he does make reference to theistic realism being grounded in belief in creation. i cited and linked the course syllabus for baylor.  that's all i have available at the moment.  Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The course syllabus for Baylor doesn't define theistic realism as such, at least not on the page directly linked. I think that there is a distinction to be made between creation theology and creationism, don't you, Ungtss? I think Gutek is talking about the former while Johnson is (implicitly) talking about the latter. I may be wrong though. Joshuaschroeder 19:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Theistic realism is neither creation theology nor creation. it is a systematic philosophy which synthesizes the realism of aristotle with the theism of christianity, with creation as one tenet as the system.  the baylor site makes that clear.  Ungtss 02:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How is the synthesis of Aristotle with Christianity different than Thomism? Where does the Baylor site mention theistic realism as a term? Joshuaschroeder

04:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * theistic realism is in the title of the course. look at the top of the page.  as to the difference with thomism -- read Thomism -- certainly thomism held the tenets of theistic realism, but it held a lot of others too, which are not necessarily accepted by theistic realists before and after him.  johnson, for instance, is a presbyterian, not a catholic or a thomist.  User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 05:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion
I look forward to your response to each of the requests. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i hope i have lived up to your hopes and dreams. i wonder, tho, why you don't invest yourself in editing articles about which you have some knowledge.  Ungtss 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Poll
There are currently two versions of this page that are available here and at Theistic realism/temp. Please vote for which version is better and give specific criticisms to help decide how to proceed. Joshuaschroeder 15:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

context
i appreciate the context tag -- because i am so close to the topic, i am not clear on what aspects of the article are vague or lacking in context -- i am often too colored by my own philosophical presupposition to describe them clearly to an "outsider." would Stevertigo, Joshuaschroeder, or Alai be willing to make some comments here on the talkpage about what sections of the article are vague or lacking in context to aid in clarification? Ungtss 02:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a lack of context in terms of the fact that theistic realism is a reaction rather than an organic development of an idea. It is currently developed with respect to creationism, ID, etc. as a means to combat both the naturalist and the person who believes that theology is symbolic. The combatting against naturalism is clear but the arguments against the symbolic are not so clear. What makes it more confusing is that Thomism relies on symbology to some extent, though he nuances it with a number of other idealizations. I think that we are really describing more than one philosophical tenet in the article and that isn't clear. Joshuaschroeder 15:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * <> -- that's an excellent point. that's the "theological realism" -- "god's not a symbol or a myth -- he's real."  i'll try and incorporate that better, especially insofar as symbols are seen as both symbolical and substantive to some extent.  the constructive criticism is greatly appreciated:).  Ungtss 22:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Baylor college of medicine
Can Ungtss please provide the quote that demonstrates the course at Baylor is about theistic realism? Joshuaschroeder 15:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * read the linked page. "theistic realism" is in the title of the course.  what more demonstration would you like?  Ungtss 18:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * However, theistic realism isn't defined in the course objectives or in any of the linked material. How is this theistic realism and not just a clearinghouse for ideas related to theistic realism? Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * great. i thought we were going to start working together.  you are once again setting arbitrarily high standards for inclusion.  the course is about theistic realism, and contains it in the title.  the page contains tenets of theistic realism.  that makes it a source on the topic.  your demand that the online course syllabus provide a definition of theistic realism in order to be referenceable is nothing short of bizarre.  Ungtss 18:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked at the reading list for the course and it seemed very clear to me that a lot of the books were on subjects other than theistic realism. So I just want to know what part of the course is on theistic realism and what part isn't. Joshuaschroeder 20:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the course is on applying the philosophy of theistic realism to the medical profession, so the reading list strays signficantly -- but the summary of tenets on the website is about theistic realism itself. Ungtss 20:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, can you provide a quote to that effect from the website? Joshuaschroeder 20:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * please, can you provide a quote indicating otherwise? Ungtss 20:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a very straightforward request, Ungtss. You are explicitly using this course as a basis for an article. There is no indication that this a neutral summary that is solely about theistic realism and nothing else. Otherwise, how are we to evaluate its inclusion as a primary source document? Joshuaschroeder 20:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the course is about theistic realism. the material is included in the course, and reflects the same ideas as those described by johnson and others.  it is very clearly about theistic realism.  you are asking for more than is reasonably necessary to use the text in this article.  if you want to do that, you should provide reason to believe that the information is not about theistic realism.  don't shift the burden.  if you have a problem, provide an explanation of your problem.  don't make greater and greater evidentiary demands far beyond those appropriate for a wikipedia article.  Ungtss 20:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We've already both agreed that the course is about a kind of application of theistic realism. So my question is, what part is definition of theistic realism and what part is application and should we separate them? Joshuaschroeder 21:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * good. yes, we've agreed that part of it is definition and part of it is application to the medical profession.  i see nothing in the text i brought in that constitutes an application to the medical profession -- it all appears to be philosophical positions to me.  i'm led to believe that the text i brought it constitutes a summary of the basic tenets of theistic realism according to baylor.  Ungtss 21:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as much of the medical profession deals with biology, it is clear that the statements made in the context of the course with respect to evolution are dealing with applying theistic realism to biological considerations and are not part-and-parcel to theistic realism itself. Therefore I will remove the comments about evolution as they are through the lens of a particular professors take on how to apply theistic realism itself. Thanks. Joshuaschroeder 23:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * no objection. Ungtss 23:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

stuff

 * i changed the wording and referenced another article speaking specifically to TR. Please, Schroeder, this is wikipedia, the purpose of which is to provide the sum total of human knowledge, free of charge.  you are a very intelligent man who has many positive contributions to make to wikipedia in your areas of expertise.  i beg of you to add to wikipedia about things you know about, rather than deleting everything that has anything to do with creationism.  please help me to develop this article, rather than forcing me to defend against a constant stream of pretextual deletions.  Ungtss 02:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think your additions do much to improve the state of that inclusion, but now there seems to be more that is problematic. In particular, I am not sure that the opinion on "supernaturalists" can be seen as a critique of "theistic realism". The criticism he does make about theistic realism is pertinent to the article, but the criticism of Dembski is still not directly related to the subject of the article. Joshuaschroeder 05:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * why is it not directed to the subject of the article? TR is criticized as "supernaturalism."  dembki responds that it's a strawman.  how much more relevent can we get?  Ungtss 13:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that "TR is supernaturalism", but rather criticizing Dembski's use of supernaturalism. If you can develop the claim of TR being supernaturalism more, then it would be appropriate. Joshuaschroeder 15:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the whole criticism is about an article describing TR as supernaturalism -- comparing it to saying there's a demon in the lettuce. what more do you want?  Ungtss 15:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's criticism of Dembski, not theistic realism. Joshuaschroeder 17:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * it is criticism of dembski's ideas, which are theistic realism. Ungtss 17:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Dembski is supporting ideas of intelligent design and specified complexity. Dembski does not explicitly allign himself with Philip Johnson or Thomas Aquinas in the writings that were being criticized. Joshuaschroeder 20:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the issue in discussion is whether or not science can allow for acts by divine beings -- a central issue of TR, the topic of the criticism section, and the exact topic of mr. dembski's comments. your deletion is totally unwarranted, although fully rational, given the manifest intent to delete all coherent ideas from this page and those like it.  Ungtss 23:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If theisic realism can be defined as simply "God acting in history", then it is synonymous with Intelligent Design, or at the very least is simply Intelligent Design with a definition of the intelligence being "deity" as opposed to not having a strict defintion. Right now the article is very particular about what theistic realism is and it does not seem to be merely a rehash of ID. If it is such a thing, then we should consider a merge. Joshuaschroeder 04:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * there is a happy middle ground between the "rehash of ID" you fear and totally excluding everything to do with ID from this page. the middle ground lies in appropriate mention of ID insofar as it is related to this topic.  you're arguing from extremes again.  Ungtss 12:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And an appropriate inclusion and mention of ID/Dembski should occur in the article before the criticism section if we are really to make an article that engages this particular take on the subject. Joshuaschroeder 16:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Theistic realism/temp
I moved this out of the main namespace since it was a fork of this article and is more appropriate here, but has been around since May without much work on it. Dunc|&#9786; 13:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC) - sorry this is now at talk:Theistic realism/temp. Dunc|&#9786; 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Article needs a cleanup
The article as it now stands is poorly written and needs a cleanup. I have added the tag to indicate as much. Above is an alternative workspace to deal with theistic realism, basically a neologism that is an attempt made by IDers to establish their own critique of naturalism vis-a-vis theism as opposed to a vague, nondescript designer. Joshuaschroeder 06:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

philosophical naturalism -> methodological naturalism
I fixed what I consider a serious error. Johnson was said to oppose philosophical naturalism. This is just a synonym for atheism. While this is certainly true (Johnson is certainly no atheist), that hardly makes him special. Lots of people hate atheism. His real attack is on methodological naturalism, aka the scientific method that restricts science to consider only natural causes for observable phenomena while remaining neutral on the philosophical (non-scientific) question of whether God actually exists.

It's Johnson's (and ID's) attack on science and the scientific method that makes him/it so controversial, not the fact that he doesn't like atheism.

--Phil 12/25/2005

Clarifying language
The passage I edited read: "As with much of Johnson's work in the area of science and religion, faith-based foundations of theistic realism are considered convincing arguments..." I find this phrasing clumsy and, frankly, almost incomprehensible. (I believe I understand what the writer was getting at, but if you look at it closely, it's not actually saying anything much more than that theistic realists believe in arguments based on faith). So I edited to the nwe wording, which says that theistic realists consider biblical citations to be convincing arguments. Since the passage is trying to clarify why Johnson and his followers believe that their arguments can be supported by quotations from the Bible, I think this is both clear and, importantly, accurate. PiCo 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, accurate and a lot easier to read. Jim62sch 17:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of science
"Therefore, adding the theistic assumption as a prerequisite for doing science is fundamentally at odds with the very definition of science."

According to whom? Who is this all-powerful, infallible authority who decrees the exact definition of what science is? Who is it that has put forth this decree, and why should I, as a scientist, care what they think? This smacks of scientism and scientific elitism. Even if it does indeed happen to be consensus opinion, what does consensus opinion have to do with science? 74.104.100.186 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

scientific consensus. --ScienceApologist 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

sic quote

 * "accepting not just the particular conclusions that scientists have reached by also the naturalistic methodology that generated those conclusions."

This doesn't make sense. Can someone check it? Thanks, Ben Aveling 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OR section
I've removed the entire section "Criticism of theistic realism". It seems sensible, but it's just too totally OR. While the whole article need more citations, I can AGF that what is written about Theistic realism is a reasonable description of Theistic realism. But a small mini essay criticising it, that seems just too OR for me. The removed text is below. It sound right, but I don't think that's quite enough. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Theistic realism, as Johnson describes it, is an attempt to redefine science outside of naturalistic constraints. The fundamental tenets of science, summarized in the philosophy of science, eschew any appeal to supernatural causes or events. Therefore, adding the theistic assumption as a prerequisite for doing science is fundamentally at odds with the very definition of science.


 * The existence of a god or deity is a question that science does not attempt to answer since, by definition, there is no experiment 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 scientific method to prove or disprove aspects of the omnipotent and omniscient God in which he believes is strictly not permitted. The natural consequence of this is that Johnson rejects any universalist statement about the primacy of natural laws or mathematical proof, since there exist conditions whereby all such things can be violated by God. This is diametrically opposed to the empirical assumption of science and mathematics. As Johnson has it, 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 science or in methodological naturalism 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 falsified by virtue of the fact that current scientific models are successful at predicitively explaining natural phenomenon without explicitly taking that condition, or it can be considered to be unfalsifiable since the theistic realist can claim the failure to be always on the horizon, though not yet seen (see God of the gaps).


 * Additionally, Johnson's appeal to design arguments (Johnson was the person who coined the term Intelligent Design) has been rejected in the natural sciences, in biology, for example, it was rejected in favor of Darwinian evolution. Holding that the grandeur of the universe leads inevitably to the existence of a deity is a statement of faith, and as such is not an empirical observation.

Update on cleanup
I have some background in this topic but it's not really my specialty. I did some work on the article and I think I improved it but it still needs work, most significantly references. I added the section referenced above back in, but with a change in title and some significant editing. I think the section contains valuable information, but it was indeed not well written. It may still not be -- I welcome constructive criticism -- but I gave it a shot at least.--edi 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

the last paragraph
i'm pretty sure that the last paragraph of this article is opinionated/has a pov Dstarisbeastin (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article title: 'Theistic realism' vs 'Theistic science'
We already have slightly more material on the latter than the former, and it seems likely that this predominance will grow larger. Although it's probably premature to rename the article just yet, it is probably not premature to start thinking about it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns that this isn't a valid encyclopedia articles. It is a dictionary definition of two neologisms, based on primary sources entirely. The terms can be explained in wiktionary, but if we begin to write a separate article for each neologism thrown up in the "creation and evolution debate" in the United States, we will just end up with two dozen articles about the same thing, possibly written from biased perspectives (WP:CFORK).

This article just says that ID proponents believe that anything can be explained away as an act of God, and that this attitude qualifies as "science". This means that the verifiability principle falls, science disappears, and we live in an unpredictable world full of miracles thrown at us according to the current mood of the Deity. There is a term for this world-view, it is the magical or pre-scientific one. Coining new terms for it doesn't change what it is. Do not write articles about neologisms based on the authors proposing the neologism, it will not result in valid articles. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * None of Scott, Van Til, Forrest or Matzke are primary sources. The only arguable primary source is Dembski, which is used only for the (relatively trivial) point that (IDers themselves) relate the two concepts (so as to avoid OR in linking them together). This article reached its zenith in February 2009, but had since been cut down to a stub with the elimination of unsourced material. Imposing this viewpoint would appear to be one of the two main strategies of Neo-creationism (the other being the pretence that the intelligent designer isn't necessarily God), so I think the topic is worthy of an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, Theistic realism amounts to ID/Neocreationism's philosophy of science -- their proposed replacement for methodological naturalism. As such, it's a fairly important plank in their programme. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

'Scientific theory'
Theistic science is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a scientific theory. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do its followers believe or propose that it is, or substitute for, scientific theory? Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, its promoters do not believe that it is, or is a substitute for, a scientific theory -- they consider it "a substitute for" the scientific method -- which is the methodology for generating scientific theories. It is a viewpoint not an explanation . And a scientific theory is explicitly an explanation ("A scientific theory is ... a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't whether its followers think it's scientific or not. At all. That would violate WP:SELFPUB. The only thing that matters is what reliable mainstream secondary sources say, and they UNAMINOUSLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY reject the proposition that "theistic science" qualifies in any way, shap or form as science. It does not qualify in any way as a theory, either. It's more of a philosphical/theological viewpoint or approach with zero scientific utility, merit or credibility. See WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dominus, Hrafn's point, without me investigating it further, appears to make sense. Yours, however, I don't agree with.  It does matter what believers in theistic science feel about it.  Remember, we do not decide what is true or right.  If an expert on theistic science says, in a reliable source, that theistic science is a viable substitute to the scientific method, then we report that.  We also report that followers of mainstream, secular science, disagree.  We don't take a side on the debate.  We are not allowed to decide which side is correct. Cla68 (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're equivocating. "Followers" are NOT independent experts. Self-published and "mutual adoration" sources are generally inferior to reliable independent secondary sources, particulary in topics related to pseudoscience. You also keep ignoring WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:WEIGHT, and most especially, WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia is NOT the place for the proponents of a controversial concept are permitted to state their position, and then critics are allowed to respond as if the two positions had equal validity. That is not what NPOV means. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with Dominus. With the exception of Meyer, none of the exponents of this viewpoint have even remotely relevant expertise, and none of them (including Meyer) have presented any demonstration that this viewpoint is a viable methodological alternative to the current scientific method. As such, it remains a fundamentally WP:FRINGE/tiny-minority viewpoint within the philosophy of science, let alone science itself, and cannot be given equal validity. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"rejected by the mainstream science and religion movement"
So TS is rejected by mainstream science and also by mainstrem religion, although my saying this merely reflects original research. I assumed that this is what the line quoted in my header referred to. However, the link was an article about a movement ("science and religion") which involves (was started by?)a woman named Eugenie Scott. My question; why are her polemics asserted to be "mainstream", while a belief system ascribed to by figures such as Francis Collins and C.S. Lewis (neither mentioned in the article) fringe by comparison? I understand why this may be so from the standpoint of the scientific community, but it ws not made clear that that was the intention of the descrition. From a cultural standpoint, Ms. Scott is not more mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.121.51 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mistaking scholarship for polemics. If you want others mentioned in the article, please provide sources making explicit connections between their writings and theistic science. . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)