Would you also complain about arrogance if the subject were being allowed to do surgery without advanced training instead of critiquing evolution without training?
***Well, yes, but I wouldn't have as much of a leg to stand on. I guess I just don't like arrogance. Oh well, that's my issue.
Moving on to your point, the surgeon is performing a valuable service and should have the advanced training. What we're talking about is whether the education establishment should present ID side by side with abiogenesis. The education folks don't rise to your level of needed expertise, so your analogy isn't so strong there. Part of that problem is a side issue in itself.
What I have noticed is that there appear to be a few scientists (a whopping 400 world wide) who critique evolution and DO have training. These are the brave souls who can withstand the ridicule of their peers, so my suspicion is that there are more behind this number. What is the critical mass number of scientists with training who critique the theory? Apparently we have reached that critical mass, because the President of the US has taken notice. So I look forward to a positive discussion and a dropping of the arrogance from both sides.
They'd better not be presenting abiogenesis at all in relation to evolution.
Unless they also want to do such things as teach plant taxonomy as a part of astronomy.
ID of course can be taught in a philosophy class, or it can be held up as a bad example of pseudo science in a biology class...sort of "this is what not to do if you think you're doing research"
As for your 400 scientists, check PatrickHenry's home page for sites that thoroughly debunk that.