The controversy over "Intelligent Design" was guaranteed a marquee role in the 2008 presidential race last week when Senator Majority Leader and White House aspirant Bill Frist endorsed President Bush's proposal to teach I.D. in public schools.

I view Intelligent Design, which touts the untestable hypothesis of divine intervention as the answer to some of biology's open questions, as a lazy substitute for genuine research, diminishing both science and religion.

So it's disappointing to see science education being exploited as a cynical wedge issue to excite portions of the Republican base. But this could also be an opportunity to advance long-needed education reforms. Traditionally, it's been us conservatives who've cried foul as liberals in power politicized the public school curriculum. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, perhaps more liberals will join the fight for what conservatives have promoted for years—publicly funded vouchers that allow all parents to opt out of unsatisfactory government schools.

Indeed, perhaps no major American institution is as unintelligently designed as public education. Why do we have state and local school boards making micro-level, one-philosophy-fits-all decisions on behalf of all public-school parents? The contentious school issues—from evolution and sex education to multiculturalism and testing—can be better settled by letting parents choose a school that matches their values.

Some might answer that expanding school choice eliminates the indispensable melting pot. But those who still cling to that particular religious-like belief ignore that in cities like Seattle, those who can have already bailed on government schools. Nearly 25 percent of Seattle children (overwhelmingly white and affluent) are in private schools. The shriveled remnant of the public school district is abandoned to the insufficiently diverse mix of mostly lower-income and minority kids. Shouldn't the playing field be leveled so these kids have the same opportunity that my son has to attend a school that matches their parents' quality standards and philosophy?

The government educrats should forfeit their monopoly on public funds and give scholarships (means-tested, if you prefer) to families that choose a non-government school. Oddly, the loudest opponents of this idea are the secular liberals who are also the most fervent advocates for Darwinian evolution. But those who believe that "survival of the fittest" explains biological progress should also welcome the Darwinian competition that will allow the fittest schools to survive. Unsuccessful schools deserve to be as extinct as dinosaurs. Proponents of evolution shouldn't worry that some parents might choose an "intelligent design" curriculum and vice versa. Those who have confidence in their own ideas and their preferred instruction methods should be confident that their favored schools will evolve to the top in the healthy competition that results when parents have more choices for educating their children.

Stefan Sharkansky founded the local conservative politics blog www.soundpolitics.com.