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.
Well jennyp, you're on dangerous ground when you start attributing motive aren't you?
Before I respond, let me see if I can repeat your statement in a way that you'd agree with.
You think ignorant believers are sneaking their God into your universe, falsely bolstering their faith by attributing to their God the evidence of design we all find in nature?