Home
» Intelligent Design » N. T. Wright on Epicurus, Deism, and Darwin
N. T. Wright on Epicurus, Deism, and Darwin
| June 30, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
36 Responses to N. T. Wright on Epicurus, Deism, and Darwin
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Phinehas,
You must be careful. Nakashima is setting you up. He is playing a role. Just like Dr. Dembski posts a topic here at UD that seems serious and then tricks all the Darwinists by saying it is really just a parody, so is Nakashima doing. Remember how Dr. Dembski tricked all those at Baylor with that nasty letter then revealed his parody . . . so too will Nakashima.
Wright was describing how the TE position arose. Darwin did not create the TE position but gave it aid and comfort whether his ideas are true or not. Whether Wright is a TE or not, I do not know. Dembski is on record describing the problems with the TE position and that he has serious problems with it especially its embrace of Darwin’s ideas.
I took from the video that Dembski was providing someone’s opinion about the origin and support of the TE position and since he is on record as being against the TE position, he is not countenancing Wright’s views if in fact he is a TE. I suggest people might re read my comments #5 and #6.
The TE position is very comforting to those who hold it. But if it is not in sync with the world, then they have real problems because as Dembski and others have pointed out they are in bed with the atheists on something that contributes to atheistic belief. And how ironic that is especially since it has no basis in reality and could not have come from God. The TEs think they need Darwin in order to have a truly great God and one free of generating evil but Dembski and other ID supporters have shown that they do not have Darwin. So the TEs denigrate ID almost as much as the Darwinists or atheists. Both desperately need Darwin for their world views. Otherwise both the TEs and the atheist’s world views collapse.
Mr Phineas,
I read Dr Dembski’s LCI posts here on UD and responded constructively to him. He is arguing that evolution happens, but that the mechanism of information injection needs further investigation. I can see how that position fits with Wright’s comments.
Mr Jerry,
What is the difference between a TE and a Darwinist?
Darwinist is a term used here to describe those who ascribe to Darwin’s ideas as the sole or main mechanism for evolution and further that they then use this conclusion to push a metaphysical agenda which is atheistic. And since there is no God according to the atheist He couldn’t have a role in anything that has happened in the universe. This world view then drives their science and limits the possible explanations for all phenomena. The term is also used by some to describe anyone who believes all of evolution is essentially driven by Darwin’s ideas but don’t make metaphysical claims based on it.
A TE is one who believes in an all powerful God and that naturalistic means were used by God to guide us to our present state in the world by an initial design, primarily the initial and boundary conditions of the Big Bang. This initial design led to the formation of this planet, life and evolution to man. They believe that God can affect what happens in this world but that He generally chooses to operate through secondary causes. Christian TEs believe God interferes/d at various times directly but not to change natural laws (for example, some believes He operates through quantum events.) There is a whole range of positions and it is not possible to find one consistent definition of what a TE is since they cannot define it themselves. I suggest one go to the ASA forum and read past discussions on it or read books by Francis Collins, Ken Miller or Darrel Falk.
A book written on science by TEs is Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation
http://www.amazon.com/Perspect.....038;sr=1-8
The essays by Loren Haarsma are outstanding.
Both the terms Darwinist and TE are not exact but can be used to generally describe broad classes of individuals and their assessment of science and particularly evolutionary biology. Both these positions flowed from the Enlightenment and Wright was commenting on this when he said all they were looking for is a theory like Darwin’s to complete their view of the world and explain life. I am sure Darwin knew this since he was part of this Enlightenment heritage.
Both group’s concept of science seem to be driven by ideology rather than an open mind to all possibilities. In that way I often lump Darwinists, TEs and YECs as groups whose science is driven by ideology.
We have been down this road many times before.