This issue was so butchered at the Dover trial that it is impossible to resolve it in any intelligent way. You cannot really adopt the conclusions of that trial, which were so against ID as religion, because the science is ambiguous: the natural selection model is clearly in trouble, while the design argument, egregiously compromised by the use of the term ‘intelligent’, is suggestive but without a foundation in, admittedly, reductionist science. But the fact remains that mainstream Darwinians are unfairly exploiting the church/state prohibitions to promote a bad theory, which drives religious critics to obstinate attempts to restore clarity, in vain. In this situation the domain of science, i.e. the domain of dialectical argumentation, and hypothesis discovery, can’t evade discussions of design/complexity, and that’s that. Attempts to darwinize the examples of supercomplexity, as in the eubacterial flagellum are head-scratchers, are darwinists serious here? Apparently they are, so maybe we need dissent here. It’s that simple, ‘design’ enters inexorably into the discussions of evolution. Period. We can certainly say that adding the term ‘Intelligent’ to ‘design’ is bad faith, and signs of sneaky religious motives, but unless darwinists can really explain complexity the ambiguous discussion can’t be banned from science class rooms.
Here’s an example of darwinists trying to evade ‘complexity’ objections:
This is not convincing and induces little more than distrust of mainstream science on the subject. The pressure to conform has, furthermore, wrecked evolutionary reasoning in the whole science club, its seems. It should be clear that very complex entities can’t ‘evolve’ at random. Their ‘design’ is therefore subject to some more complex form of evolution. I.e a possibly teleological process.
This is quite different from ‘intelligent design’ arguments, and deserves an inevitable place in classrooms.
Here an attempt is made to exploit the term ‘irreducible’ in the phrase ‘irreducible complexity’. There is a point here. There are often stages of already functioning entities that could be remorphed to a higher complexity. So not all complex objects are ‘irreducible’. OK, but so what? The whole issue of complexity can’t be dismissed so easily in this way. Even if a reducible complex object shows an antecedent, it is still untrue that the reduced prior component could evolve to higher functionality by natural selection.
Defenders of darwinism are a puzzling group. They claim all the credentials of science and then fumble the ball on the first step, oblivious to their situation.
You cannot ban this kind of discussion in a science of evolution, and therefore you can’t really ban it from classrooms. It is not hard to show that complexity falsifies most darwinian arguments, and, at the same time, critique ID arguments as insufficient to be science.
These situations are intolerable to darwinists because they must dissemble to promote their bogus theory, and mostly they are half-consciousnly aware of this.