Antievolution in a “Post-Wedge” World?

By | 2007/10/06

Google Alerts popped up with use of my name elsewhere in a comment about freeing “intelligent design” from the “Wedge” strategy in a “Post-Wedge world”.

I don’t think that there is a “Post-Wedge world”. As long as the same old tired, bogus antievolution arguments get used to diminish evolutionary science, the “Wedge” is still in effect. What name gets used as the rhetorical thin edge of the “Wedge” may change, but the content remains the same.

Just thought that I would clear that up.

Which makes the following bit:

As Elsberry explains, ID can no longer be the leading edge of the “wedge.” Thus, objective and reasonable people can no longer view those of us who are interested in ID, and how it relates to biology and evolution, as being part of “the wedge.”

a complete non sequitur. People are using the “Wedge” as long as they continue to promote the same old tired, bogus antievolution arguments. The high-profile IDC advocates are still all “Wedging” just as they were before. They just don’t use the same label for it anymore.

Be Sociable, Share!
<> 6470 2106 >

One thought on “Antievolution in a “Post-Wedge” World?

  1. Austringer Post author

    Wes Elsberry’s response fails to refute this point.

    Only if someone erroneously thought that a “wedge” consisted solely of a “leading edge” could that be true. The DI CSC has made it clear that while they don’t wish IDC to be “mandated” for instruction in public schools, that they still are activists for the notion the teachers be allowed to teach IDC in public schools without interference from their administrators. IDC is still part of the package of antievolution argumentation and activism, part of the payload that will follow whatever they call the current leading edge of the “wedge”.

    I also think it is ludicrous to say that I have in any sense downplayed the significance of the Kitzmiller decision. That’s just loopy.

Comments are closed.