Abstract
In this article, I defend my previous argument that natural divine causation suffers under the problem of causal overdetermination and that it cannot serve as a line of demarcation between theistic evolution (TE) and intelligent design (ID). I do this in light of Christoffer Skogholt's critique of my article. I argue that Skogholt underestimates the naturalistic ambitions of some current thinkers in TE and fails, therefore, to adequately respond to my main argument. I also outline how partial causation better serves as a model for the relationship between God's providence and evolution.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 696-709 |
| Journal | Zygon |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 28 Aug 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2020 |
Keywords
- Causality
- Intelligent design
- Overdetermination
- Panentheism
- Theistic evolution
- Theistic naturalism
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The problem of natural divine causation and the benefits of partial causation: a response to Skogholt'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver