Theistic Evolution Quotes

“Methodological naturalism asserts that , to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain all phenomena by reference to purely physical or material--that is, non-intelligent or non-purposive--causes or processes.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“Given the known scientific inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian mutation/natural selection mechanism, and the absence of any alternative evolutionary mechanism with any sufficient creative power to explain the origin of major innovations in biological form and information, we argue that theistic evolution devolves into little more than an a priori commitment to methodological naturalism--the idea that scientists must limit themselves to strictly materialistic explanations and that scientists may not offer explanations making reference to intelligent design or divine action, or make any reference to theology in scientific discourse.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“Theistic evolutionists...deny what advocates of intelligent design affirm, namely, that the past activity of a designing intelligence, is detectable or discernible in living systems.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“Theistic evolutionists, like mainstream neo-Darwinists, affirm the third meaning of evolution--i.e., the sufficiency of the natural selection/mutation mechanism (possibly in conjunction with other similarly naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms) as an explanation for the origin of new forms and features of life. Since natural selection and random mutations can account for the origin of biological systems (and their appearances of design), theistic evolutionists steadfastly deny the need to propose an actual designing intelligence.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“if God did not at least direct the process of mutation and selection (and/or other relevant evolutionary mechanisms), but instead merely sustained the laws of nature that made them possible, then it follows that he could not know, and does not know, what those mechanisms would (or will) produce, including whether they would have produced human beings...Since in this view, nature has significant autonomy from God, and since God does not direct or control the evolutionary process, he cannot know what it will produce--a conclusion at odds with God's omniscience and providence. Similarly, since God doesn not direct the evolutionary process, what it produces cannot be said to express his specific intentions in creation--a conclusion that also stands at odds with the biblical claim that God made man expressly in his own image and 'foreknew' him.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“...if God did not at least direct the process of mutation and selection (and/or other relevant evolutionary mechanisms), but instead merely sustained the laws of nature that made them possible, then it follows that he could not know and does not know, what those mechanisms would (or will) produce, including whether they would have produced human beings.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“It, [theistic evolution] therefore, contradicts the plainly theistic view of divine action articulated in the Bible, where God acts in his creation after the beginning of the universe. Indeed, the Bible describes God as not only acting to create the universe in the beginning; it also describes him as presently upholding the universe in its orderly concourse and also describes him as acting discretely as an agent within the natural order.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“...if living organisms are the result of a directed process, then it follows that the appearance of design in living organisms is real, not merely apparent or illusory. Nevertheless, chief proponents of theistic evolution reject the theory of intelligent design with its claim that the appearance of design in living organisms is real. Thus, any proponent of theistic evolution who affirms that God is directing the evolutionary mechanism, and who also rejects intelligent design, implicitly contradicts himself.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“...if the theistic evolutionist means to affirm the standard Darwinian view of the natural selection/mutation mechanism as an undirected process while simultaneously affirming that God is still causally responsible for the origin of new forms of life, then the theistic evolutionist implies that God somehow guided or directed an unguided and undirected process. Logically, no intelligent being--not even God--can direct an undirected process. As soon as he directs it, the 'undirected' process would no longer be undirected.”
― Stephen C. Meyer, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“Unfortunately we live in a time in which only those who have themselves conducted science in some authorized manner are allowed to say anything about what science is and where it should go.”
― Steve Fuller, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“...public opinion surveys consistently show that people are pro-science as a mode of inquiry, but anti-science as a mode of authority.”
― Steve Fuller, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“The first movement in human history to trust the ordinary person's ability to judge the weight of evidence for themselves was the drive to get people to read the Bible for themselves...The Scientific Revolution then extended that 'judge for yourself' attitude to all of physical reality by explicitly treating nature as a second sacred book. Thus it is not surprising that Francis Bacon, with whom the 'scientific method' is normally associated, was also instrumental in the production of the King James version of the Bible.”
― Steve Fuller, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“The first movement in human history to trust the ordinary person's ability to judge the weight of evidence for themselves was the drive to get people to read the Bible for themselves.”
― Steve Fuller, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“...from cosmology to biology, it is becoming increasingly clear that science's failure to explain matters at the most fundamental level is at least in part due to an institutional prohibition on intelligent design as one of the explanatory options.”
― Steve Fuller, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

“I have always regarded "atheism" in the true sense (that is, anti-theism, not simply anti-clericalism) as a moral and/or epistemic failure--perhaps a prudishness if not absence of the imagination, which when threatened can morph into bigotry toward that which one simply fails to understand. The neologism "theophobia" would not be out of place.”
― Steve Fuller, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique