The reason why intelligent design seems acceptable at all to some average citizens is because its name sounds so good. How can one not agree with the mere term, "intelligent design?" The emperor's new clothes were only seen by the "intelligent."
The "irreducible complexity" bit is pretty well-known as wholly discredited and why. Read on from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
"
Irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The main concerns with the concept is that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, though Behe does not explicitly affirm creationism in his book and specifically notes that he accepts the age of the earth and evolution by natural selection in other respects.
The IC (irreducible complexity) argument also assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales[40], demonstrating that it isn't essential for a clotting system. Many purported IC structures can be found in other organisms as simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct.
Perhaps most importantly, potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system[41] and the flagellum[42], which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald[43]. If IC is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways—Behe has remarked that such plausible pathways would defeat his argument.
Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes[44]. They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is redundant complexity — a kind of complexity that is the product of an evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions results in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded and an over-reliance of overly-simplistic metaphors such as his mousetrap. In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally[45].
There has been much scientific opposition to the irreducible complexity, with one science writer calling it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy." [10] It may be that irreducible complexity does not actually exist in nature: that the examples given by Behe and others are not in fact irreducibly complex, but can be explained in terms of simpler precursors. Thus they would either be merely very complex, or they would be misunderstood or misrepresented.
Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:
Intelligent design lacks consistency.[22]
Intelligent design is not falsifiable.[23]
Intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony.[24]
Intelligent design is not empirically testable.[25]
Intelligent design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[26]
In light of its adherence to the standards of the scientific method, Intelligent Design can not be said to follow the scientific method. There is no way to test its conjectures, and the underlying assumptions of Intelligent Design are not open to change.
"
The National Geographic magazine ran an issue entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong?" Flip to "NO! If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. Theories are an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence."
From PBS: "The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined."
The recent interest in trying to get creationism taught in science class is due to the fundamentalist Christian right's Discovery Institute strategy, called the "Wedge Strategy." This strategy is an intentional assault on how the public views evolution. One cannot call the "Wedge" a "conspiracy," per se, because the Discovery Institute is not hiding the fact that they are on a political mission to undermine the teaching of evolution.
The Discovery Institute's main thrust has been to promote ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers, and to represent evolution as a "theory in crisis" and advocating teachers to "Teach the Controversy." It has employed a number of specific political strategies and tactics in the furtherance of its goals. These range from attempts at the state level to undermine or remove altogether the presence of evolutionary theory from the public school classroom, to having the federal government mandate the teaching of intelligent design, to 'stacking' municipal, county and state school boards with ID proponents. The Discovery Institute has been a significant player in many of these cases, through the CSC providing a range of support from material assistance to federal, state and regional elected representatives in the drafting of bills to supporting and advising individual parents confronting their school boards.
Some of the political battles which have involved the Discovery Institute include:
Kansas evolution hearings
Santorum Amendment
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - the Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design controversy
In 2004 the institute opened an office in Washington D.C and in 2005 hired the same Washington public relations firm that promoted the Contract With America in 1994.
Heck, at least know your sources. At least know that 99.99999% of the respected, established, peer-reviewed Ph.D's of the scientific community see that the evidence from several different fields all points to upholding the theory of evolution. After you know this and still agree with Creationism/ID, well, I guess you are truly a "free spirit."
PS- Does this mean that one can not simultaneously believe in God and evolution? No. You can believe in both. You just have to be able to think for yourself a little to work it out somewhat. Who set up the laws of the universe? Who created the laws of evolution? Who started the big bang? God? Yes, I think so. But it seems that "he" really wanted us to figure it all out for ourselves, "he" gave us free will to sink or swim, learn it (or not), and meet "him" at the end of it all, fully evolved. Learn people, learn. We're all one.
