Categorizations of the interface of evolution and religion

The Aims of Typologies and a Typology of Methods

“…Operating in a different cultural landscape, Malik also offers a concept‐oriented typology, albeit one constrained to the relationship between Islam and human evolution rather than between religion and science more generally. And rather than focusing on different aspects of Muslim/scientific practice, Malik zooms in on particular understandings of scripture and the theory of evolution—it is in fact explicitly unidimensional (Pear and Malik 2022, 632). Thus, Muslim perspectives on evolution are typed according to their understanding of that theory: as entailing that all animals were produced via evolution, that only nonhuman animals were so produced, or that at least Adam (the first human) was not generated by evolution.…”

“…Thus, Muslim perspectives on evolution are typed according to their understanding of that theory: as entailing that all animals were produced via evolution, that only nonhuman animals were so produced, or that at least Adam (the first human) was not generated by evolution. These groups all believe that Islam and evolution are compatible, in contrast to the “Creationists” who reject the evolutionary origins of any animals whatsoever (Malik 2021, p. 111; Pear and Malik 2022, 632).…”

“…This focus on conceptions of evolution is motivated, similar to Drees and Stenmark's, by a critique of conclusion‐oriented typologies as inadequately nuanced. However, rather than expanding to a multidimensional model, Malik specifically proposes a unidimensional system because it (1) “helps avoid confusing and mixing religious and scientific beliefs or attitudes ” and (2) “can clearly demarcate between what individuals accept regarding evolution versus why they accept or reject evolution” (Pear and Malik 2022, 632; emphasis original). Thus, a concept‐oriented typology is thought to be more useful than a conclusion‐based one, an idea we will build on later.…”

“…Alister McGrath's comment is representative: "despite its limitations, the framework set out by Barbour remains helpful as a means of approaching the field of science and religion studies" (McGrath 2020, 12). Some have proposed alternative typologies: Haught (1995), Drees (1999), Stenmark (2004Stenmark ( , 2010, Malik (2021), and Pear and Malik (2022) for example. But in a sense they are all doing the same kind of thing: they carve out the space of logically possible/plausible ways in which religion and science could be related and place various scholars (and non) into those niches.…”

“…Some have proposed alternative typologies: Haught (1995), Drees (1999), Stenmark (2004, 2010), Malik (2021), and Pear and Malik (2022) for example. But in a sense they are all doing the same kind of thing: they carve out the space of logically possible/plausible ways in which religion and science could be related and place various scholars (and non) into those niches.…”