I agree with this, as well as @T_aquaticus latest response to me.
However, maybe I’m being pedantic (I don’t think I am), or maybe it’s a difference in the way a scientist and non scientist reads a statement.
In the original post I jumped off of
@colewd wrote " An example is text books insisting that evolution is blind and unguided."
@T_aquaticus responded “How is that ideological? That happens to be the scientific conclusion supported by mountains of evidence.”
If you replaced “is blind” with “can be blind” in the first sentence, then I have no problem with the response. Likewise if you replaced “conclusion” in the response with “consensus or working assumption” it works for me. However, I read “conclusion” as hypothesis that has been validated" which doesn’t seem to line up with either of your responses.