# Replies to Commentators on Mere Theistic Evolution

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/replies-to-commentators-on-mere-theistic-evolution/14917>\
**Category:** Peaceful Science\
**Created:** [March 15, 2022, 2:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/replies-to-commentators-on-mere-theistic-evolution/14917 "2022-03-15T14:01:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2022, 3:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/replies-to-commentators-on-mere-theistic-evolution/14917/10 "2022-03-19T03:07:13Z")

</div>

I think a large part of the problem is that both Murray and Churchill appear to be Philosophers of Religion with, it would appear, at-best superficial exposure to actual science. I think that this meant that they would be less-than-well-prepared to defend the scientific aspects of a position on “Mere Theistic Evolution” was foreseeable. As it turns out this made it easy for Meyer (who, for all his crimes-against science, is a philosopher of science by training, and therefore likely the most familiar-with-science of the trio) to [outflank them on the scientific side](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-christians-need-to-reconcile-evolutionary-theory-and-doctrines-of-divine-providence-and-creation/14889/1), and makes it difficult for them to provide a scientifically-literate response.

I think the conclusion here is that, given the subject material, they should have included a philosopher of science and/or a theist evolutionary biologist in their project.

I have to wonder how much of the ‘Science and Religion’ field comes from philosophers of religion and/or theologians, with superficial exposure to science.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/replies-to-commentators-on-mere-theistic-evolution/14917)._