"Under cover of advanced degrees, including a few in science, obtained in some of the major universities, the Wedge’s workers have been carving out a habitable and expanding niche within higher education..."
Yes, I'd call that condescending.
"Moreover, there is every reason to think that religiously conservative, anti-science agitation will increase, especially as the life sciences and medical research continue to probe the fundamentals of human behavior."
When discussion enters the realm of Origins, (the code word used by the author is "fundamentals"), then the science teacher must admit that he may not have all the facts at his disposal using the reductionist's definition/ version of the scientific method.
For example, I can give two scientific explanations for my existence.
I was created by the coming together of a sperm and an egg.
It is also true that my parents are Al and Mary Lou.
Both are scientific facts. One view is how a reductionist describes my arrival.
The other is more personal.
Science should not be used to rule out the personal explanation for my existence. Is this a wedge? a wedgie perhaps? Only for those who want a reductionist world view...which is a drift beyond science into a pseudo-scientific world... a philosophical perspective.
John Polkinhorne, a physicist and a priest has written (extremely paraphrased): "The water in the teapot is boiling because the gas fire is heating it up. The water is also boiling because I want a cup of tea."
Tell me which of these two true facts is not scientific.
John Polkinhorne, a physicist and a priest has written (extremely paraphrased): "The water in the teapot is boiling because the gas fire is heating it up. The water is also boiling because I want a cup of tea."They are both scientific. They are both (presumably) true. That is not the issue.Tell me which of these two true facts is not scientific.
The issue is whether or not it takes supernatural intervention to create an entity that can "want" something. The creationists believe that intelligence can only come from a supernatural source. That's why the ID'ers call their movement "Intelligent Design", yet when you get beyond the press releases and into their essays, speeches, & books, you discover that they've declared "philosophical naturalism" or "materialism" as the true nemesis that threatens the moral fabric of society. It's a false dichotomy.
Of course, the real reason they frame the debate this way is because they can't push explicit appeals to God into the government schools' biology classes. But their goal is to prevent the students from doubting God's existence. So they came up with this euphemism - "intelligent designer" - while trying to slip in their real position - supernaturalism - under the radar.
Forrest & Gross are not being condescending in their book. They are very respectful of how successful a public relations ploy this has been. But ID is simply not an honest approach.