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.

What is the difference between a TE and a Darwinist?

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.

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.

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.

I don’t think it deliberately obtuse to suppose that Dr Dembski agrees with a theologian whose statements he posts without comment.

Are you truly operating from a place of such extreme ignorance that you must grasp at the smallest implications or vague impressions for a glimpse into what Dr. Dembski believes about Darwin’s scientific observations? If so, your ignorance is of your own choosing.

I still think your ignorance is feigned, since you don’t strike me as the type to enter into protracted discussions without having availed yourself of at least a cursory glance at relevant information. But I suppose I could be wrong.

I don’t think it deliberately obtuse to suppose that Dr Dembski agrees with a theologian whose statements he posts without comment.

With respect to Wright’s opinions themselves, I’m not feeling insecure. They are like Dawkins talking about religion – someone speaking outside their area of professional expertise.

I did intend to get a fuller discussion started of Wright’s total position, because I think that is important.

I admit to being ata loss for his exact reasons.

Do you also admit to being deliberately obtuse in choosing to assign a reason that allows you to stir up the most trouble?

Here’s the thing: people who actually have the facts on their side don’t need to play such petty little games. This sort of post exposes your insecurities about your own position. If you hadn’t posted it, I would have thought you more secure than you evidently are.

If i quote someone, I try to be careful with showing why. If Dr Dembski posts without comment, I admit to being ata loss for his exact reasons. It is enigmatic, and while it maintains an element of deniability, I prefer to take the act of posting as blanket approval. Dr Dembski could easily have added “Nice analysis of the intellectual currents around Darwin, but Wright is wrong after 3:11.”

I admit that the quality of my comments is variable. However, if there is ever any doubt, you can tag my comments “uppity”, “troublemaking”, “not taking things seriously”.

I’d like to thank Dr Dembski for publishing this post and bringing Wright’s views to our attention. I assume they have his approval.

Many of your posts bear a semblance of thoughtfulness that I respect. This one falls short of your usual standards.

Are we to also assume that you agree with everything espoused by someone you choose to quote? Darwin’s racism, etc.?

One suspects you are just trying to stir up trouble and controversy where none exists. Why would you want to do that?