In What Sense Is Theistic Evolution More Rational Than Naturalistic Evolution?

Piotr Bylica

doi:10.21697/spch.2025.61.A.11

Published: 2025-12-31

Vol. 61 No. 2 (2025)

In What Sense Is Theistic Evolution More Rational Than Naturalistic Evolution?

Piotr Bylica

Studia Philosophiae Christianae

Section: Papers

https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2025.61.A.11

Abstract

Drawing on the contributions of logical positivism and the socio-historical perspective in the philosophy of science, I advocate the thesis of the empirical equivalence between metaphysical theistic and naturalistic interpretations of the evolutionary process. This process, defined by the variability of life forms on Earth, primarily occurs through natural selection and genetic mutations. Highlighting the shared aspects of the anti-naturalist arguments put forward by Clive S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga, I propose that these arguments support the view that a theistic interpretation of evolution is more rational than a naturalistic one. This is because naturalistic evolutionism encounters the problem of its own credibility, as it calls into question the reliability of our cognitive faculties. In contrast, theistic interpretations of evolution are more compatible with the reliability of our cognitive faculties.

----------------------------------------

Received: 23/07/2025. Reviewed: 25/08/2025. Accepted: 9/10/2025.

Keywords:

logical positivism, evolution, theism, naturalism, C.S. Lewis, A. Plantinga, rationality

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 > >>

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Bylica, P. (2025). In What Sense Is Theistic Evolution More Rational Than Naturalistic Evolution?. Studia Philosophiae Christianae, 61(2), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2025.61.A.11

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Bassham, G. (2015). Introduction. In G. Bassham (ed.), C.S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics. Pro and Con (1-26). Brill – Rodopi. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004301658_002
Google Scholar

Bylica, P. (2015). Levels of Analysis in Philosophy, Religion, and Science. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 50(2), 304-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12179
Google Scholar

Bylica, P. (2024). Ewolucyjny argument z rozumu przeciwko naturalizmowi a idea emergencji. Zarys problematyki. Studia Philosophiae Christianae, 60(2), 173-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2024.60.A.17
Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1996). Philosophy and Logical Syntax. Thoemmes Press.
Google Scholar

Clayton, P. (1998). God and Contemporary Science. Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar

Clayton, P. (2002). Neuroscience, the Person, and God. An Emergentist Account. In R.J. Russell, N. Murthy, T.C. Meyering, and M.A. Arbib (eds.), Neuroscience and the Person, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (181-214). Vatican Observatory Publications – Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.
Google Scholar

Darwin, C. (1958). Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1892, with original omissions restored. W.W. Norton & Company.
Google Scholar

Darwin, C. (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. Volume 2. John Murray. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/270305
Google Scholar

Darwin, C. (1887). Letter To William Graham 3 July 1881. In F. Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter (315-316). John Murray. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.23455
Google Scholar

Fève, C. (2022). Thomas Kuhn on Transformations of the Scientific World-View and Gestalt Psychology. Philosophia Scientiae, 26(3), 255-273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.3704
Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. NLB.
Google Scholar

Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache – Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Schwabe und Co.
Google Scholar

Goodman, N. (1954). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Athlone Press.
Google Scholar

Gray, A. (1861). Natural Selection Not Inconsistent with Natural Theology. A Free Examination of Darwin’s Treatise on the Origin of Species, and of Its American Reviewers. Trübner & Co. https://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A567&pageseq=1 [accessed 12/12/2024]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.168648
Google Scholar

Gray, J.L. (1893). Letters of Asa Gray. Volume 2. Houghton Mifflin and Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.55678
Google Scholar

Hall, A.R. (1962). The Scientific Revolution 1500-1800. The Formation of the Modern Scientific Attitude. Longmans.
Google Scholar

Jevons, W.S. (1877). The Principles of Science. A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method. Macmillan.
Google Scholar

Jodkowski, K. (1990). Wspólnoty uczonych, paradygmaty i rewolucje naukowe. Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Google Scholar

Kim, J.B. (1996). Jevon’s Curve Fitting. The Korean Economic Review, 12(1), 155-165.
Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. (2000). Copernican Revolution. Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar

Larson, E.J., Witham, L. (1997). Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith. Nature, 386, 435-436. https://doi.org/10.1038/386435a0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/386435a0
Google Scholar

Lewis, C.S. (1977). Miracles. A Preliminary Study. Collins.
Google Scholar

Lewis, C.S. (2017). The Funeral of a Great Myth. In W. Hooper (ed.), Clive Staples Lewis, Christian Reflections (114-130). William Collins.
Google Scholar

Michalska, A. (2015). Gestalt as Structure Principles in Science, Art and Language. Dialogue and Universalism, 25(4), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.5840/du201525490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/du201525490
Google Scholar

Moreland, J.P. (2018). Scientism and Secularism. Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. Crossway.
Google Scholar

Oppy, G. (2022). Anti-naturalistic Arguments from Reason. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 70(2), 15-35. https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2201.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/rf2201.2
Google Scholar

Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195078640.001.0001
Google Scholar

Plantinga, A. (2002). The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. An Initial Statement of the Argument. In J. Beilby (ed.), Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (1-12). Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar

Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812097.001.0001
Google Scholar

Ratzsch, D. (2000). Science and Its Limits. The Natural Sciences in the Christian Perspective. IVP Academic.
Google Scholar

Reppert, V. (2003a). Several Formulations of the Argument from Reason. Philosophia Christi, 5(1), 9-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pc2003512
Google Scholar

Reppert, V. (2003b). C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea. In Defense of the Argument from Reason. InterVarsity Press.
Google Scholar

Sprenger, J. (2024). The Paradoxes of Confirmation. In M. Lasonen-Aarnio, C. Littlejohn (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Evidence (112-123). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672687-12
Google Scholar

White, M., Gribbin, J. (2009). Darwin. A Life in Science. Pocket Books.
Google Scholar

Wright, G.H. von. (1965). The Paradoxes of Confirmation. Theoria, 31(3), 255-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1965.tb00582.x
Google Scholar