That is, there are two sides of ID. One side is scientific, and the other is not. Wolfson quotes two eminent scientists as praising ID promoters for aptly noting through biochemistry and mathematical physics “that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection cannot explain the existence of some complex biological systems.” They have shown scientifically that there are “various difficulties in orthodox Darwinian theory.” “They have better than most shown how natural selection comes up short as a universal meta-explanation.”
But then there’s the unscientific side of ID, which teaches that the only possible answer to the resulting paradox is a “Designer-God.” Wolfson argues that this conclusion in unscientific. It might be reasonable, but it cannot be tested scientifically.
Interestingly, there is also an unscientific side to dogmatic Darwinism, which has been misused as “a battering-ram against religion.”
“If the point of Darwinism is to refute the existence of God, as these popularizers tend to claim, then it too would have to be excluded from the science curriculum. The Supreme Court, after all, has ruled that the state must remain neutral between religion and irreligion. In their more heated polemics, Darwin's popularizers paint themselves into this intellectual corner.”Somehow this point seems to be lost on our education and judicial systems.
Wolfson laments that the unscientific portion of ID is preventing the scientific portion from gaining any traction. The unfortunate result is that “the mistaken notion that Darwin defeated God--not only reigns culturally supreme, but also apparently increasingly has the legal backing of the state.” He concludes that the fact that orthodox Darwinism cannot be questioned in schools “marks not so much enlightenment's progress as a narrowing of our intellectual horizons.”