"The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth."
-'Publius' The Federalist No. 1
The credence of argument is swept away by the condescending nature in which the information of this editorial is presented. Particularly, the quote,
"Intelligent design" boils down to the claim sarcastically summed up by aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg on his blog, Transterrestrial Musings: "I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer." Simberg, a political conservative, concludes that this argument "doesn't belong in a science classroom, except as an example of what's not science."
Included, though, in this debate is an interesting twist that is not discussed frequently. This assertion being that the theory of evolution falls in line with conservative ideology more than it does with liberal ideology. This is one of the 'choice' issues that always seems to revolve around the merit of the argument before the 'choice' can be proffered. Herein, the statement:
"A scientific hypothesis must be testable meaning that, if it is wrong, there should be a way to disprove it. (That's why assertions that there is no conclusive proof of evolution are basically pointless.) "
But, should this not be reciprocal. All the 'Intelligent Design' movement is asking for is a 'fair' seat at the table. More individual scholars and scientists believe in ID, it is assumed that they by and far believe in evolution. Should this not be reciprocated in what we put forth in our curriculums? No one is stating that everyone must believe the dogma, we are just heretics to the evolutionary doctrine.