Your Sunday editorial supporting evolution as true science in biology classes actually argues well for intelligent design.
The gist of your editorial was evolution is scientific fact, whereas intelligent design is based on faith and not evidence and is not of educational merit. Evolution by your account is “built on empirical evidence with hypotheses generated and tested,” thereby satisfying the scientific method.
The editorial also asserted there is no controversy about evolution and reputable scientists denying this would be “hard to find.”
These assertions, though widespread in the media and educational worlds, are uninformed and untrue. No one has ever observed evolution or species change in the scope you suggest. Natural selection and adaptation are readily accepted by all. But this is not evolution explaining the origin of the universe or mankind. Sure, a white fox born in the Arctic is more apt to survive than a red one, leading eventually to a large population of white foxes there. Micro-evolution is readily accepted by all.
No one, creationist or evolutionist, was “there” millions of years ago to witness the origins of life. This theory of macro-evolution is not only unobserved but not testable, thereby not complying to the scientific method at all. It is conjecture and theory only, yet presented as fact.
Many scientists promote creation and see it as the most intelligent position. See the book, “In Six Days,” with 50 brief essays by microbiologists to astrophysicists endorsing intelligent design.
To mention evolution and intelligent design in textbooks, with fairness to both, promotes much useful discussion and has no effect on our ability to compete in this world of real facts.
John and Nancy Miller
Creation is the most intelligent position