Is theistic evolution (TE) a philosophically tenable position? Leidenhag argues in his article “The Blurred Line between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design” that it is not, since it, Leidenhag claims, espouses a view of divine action that he labels “natural divine causation” (NDC), which makes God explanatory redundant. That is, in so far as TE does not invoke God as an additional cause alongside natural causes, it is untenable. Theistic evolutionists should therefore “reject NDC and affirm a more robust notion of divine agency.” However, this will, Leidenhag claims, have the effect that theistic evolutionists “will move their position significantly closer to Intelligent Design,” and so the line between TE and intelligent design is (or ought to be?) blurred. If successful, the criticism by Leidenhag would be bad news for theists who want to take science seriously and good news for those scientistic atheists according to whom there simply is no scientifically respectable way of combining theism and modern natural science in an overarching worldview. So, is TE stuck between a rock (of redundancy) and a hard place (of pseudo‐science)? No, at least not due to the criticism offered by Leidenhag—but maybe religious naturalism is?

中文翻译：

---

我走了一条路线：关于米凯尔·莱德尼亚格（Mikael Leidenag）关于理论进化和智能设计的评论

有神论的进化论（TE）在哲学上是否站得住脚？莱顿哈格在他的文章“有神论的进化与智能设计之间的模糊界线”中辩称，莱顿哈格声称，既然它不是神圣的行动观点，他将其标记为“自然的神因果关系”（NDC），这使上帝在解释上显得多余。也就是说，就TE而言，除了自然原因之外，他没有将上帝作为额外的原因，因此这是站不住脚的。因此，有神论的进化论者应该“拒绝NDC，并确认一个更强大的神圣代理概念”。然而，莱顿哈格声称，这将导致有神论的进化论者“将其立场大大移近智能设计”，因此TE与智能设计之间的界线（或应该变得模糊）。如果成功 对于希望认真对待科学的有神论者而言，莱顿哈格的批评将是一个坏消息，而对于那些无神论者来说，这是一个好消息，因为根据这些科学无神论者，根本没有科学上受人尊敬的方式将有神论与现代自然科学结合在一个世界观中。那么，TE是否被卡在（冗余的）一块岩石和（伪科学的）一块坚硬的土地之间？不，至少不是由于莱顿哈格的批评而引起的，但是宗教自然主义也许是吗？