Editing Theistic science (section)

==Plantinga==
In a 1991 paper, Plantinga identifies theistic science with [[creation science]]:
{{quote|'Unnatural Science', 'Creation Science,' 'Theistic Science' — call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by that methodological naturalism.<ref>{{cite journal | title = When faith and reason clash: evolution and the Bible | journal = Christian Scholars Review | year = 1991 | first = Alvin | last = Plantinga |author-link= Alvin Plantinga| volume = 21 | issue = 1 | pages = 8–32}}, cited in {{cite book | last = Drees | first = Willem | author-link=Willem B. Drees| title = Religion, Science, and Naturalism | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | year = 1998 | isbn = 0-521-64562-X|page= 159}}</ref>}}

He suggests that generally God uses secondary causes, but miracles may be needed when theistic scientists are unable to find a materialistic explanation. In 1997 he wrote "Why couldn't a scientist think as follows? God has created the world, and of course He created everything in it directly or indirectly. After a great deal of study, we can't see how he created some phenomenon P (life, for example) indirectly; thus probably he has created it directly."<ref name="ncse 18" />

Plantinga also refers to this concept as Augustinian science, and states that "in doing Augustinian science, you start by assuming the deliverances of the faith, employing them along with anything else you know in dealing with a given scientific problem or project." Plantinga argues for the acceptance of differing worldview-partisan sciences in place of a single common science.<ref name=Stenmark187>Stenmark(2004) pp187-188</ref>

Plantinga employs a [[conflict thesis]] in assessing the [[relationship between religion and science]]. These views have been criticised by Christian physicist [[Howard J. Van Till]], who rejects the conflict thesis, for relying on "folk exegesis" in his assessment of the bible's teachings on creation. Van Till argues that the problem is not evolution, but its misuse for "naturalistic [[apologetics]]".<ref>Pennock(2001) p111</ref>

Philosopher and Roman Catholic priest [[Ernan McMullin]] also disagrees with Plantinga's call for a theistic science, stating that it should not be considered to be science at all, and suggesting that Plantinga seriously understates the evidential support for [[evolution]].<ref>Pennock(2001) p112</ref> Plantinga only disagrees with naturalism, not with evolution.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://chronicle.com/article/Evolution-Shibboleths-and/64990/ | title=Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers |publisher=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] | date=April 11, 2010 | access-date = 2010-04-28}}</ref>