Cited by 50Evolution and Science EducationPhilosophy and History of ScienceTheology and Philosophy of Evil

The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning

Nelson, Paul A.·1996·Biology & Philosophy

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00138329

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nelson, P. A.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Nelson, Paul A.
Venue
Biology & Philosophy
Published
1996-10
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
493-517
ISSN
  • 0169-3867 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8404
OpenAlex
W2082765067
Cited by
50
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biology & Philosophy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
Keywords
evolutionary reasoning, methodological naturalism, design argument, theological metaphysics, Darwinism, suboptimality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review