Perhaps not, but in a republic that lets people vote on school boards and laws, what gets taught in public schools is a matter of compromise.
It's about testing your hypothesis and theories. Therefore science as researchers understand it today is and will never be an unquestionable dogma.
In theory, that's fine. In practice, science is clouded by politics and other agendas. Some theories are more strongly supported than others, but they tend to get taught and absorbed as facts in public schools to many students who will never test or think deeply about those theories. As such, what's taught to most children, be it evolution and general relativity or global warming and enviro-pseduo-science, does get absorbed as unquestionable dogma, particularly if dissenting viewpoints are never presented.
And please don't forget that looking for evidence of irreducable complexity, even though no broadly convincing candidates have been found, is an attempt to test a hypothesis. Basically, it's looking for a system in which the odds of natural development are 0% since evolutionists assume that any chance greater than 0% is sufficient to assume that natural development through evolutoin occurred, thus placing all competing theories in the position of proving a negative. Is demanding that competing theories prove a negative (that the development of life didn't happen naturally through evolution) really testing a theory or is it assuming the theory is already proven and putting the burden of proof and testing on others?
"It's to complex ... therefore it's designed" is a dogma because "It's to complex" is dogmatic. The ID hypothesis is a dogma.
"It's too complex" is not dogmatic. It's a valid odds assessment when dealing with the unknown. So is your belief in the validity of evolution. You believe, that the preponderance of evidence makes evolution a legitimate explanation for all life on Earth. Other's look at the preponderance of evidence and, for a variety of reasons, do not. Similarly, SETI advocates look at the preponderance of evidence and think the odds are good enough that there is life on other planets that they actually go look for it. Others do not and think it's a waste of money. Some people think that the preponderance of evidence proves global warming while others do not.
You make it seem as if there is one right answer and one wrong answer when, in truth, the evidence does not provide 100% proof of any answer. Is it foolish to play the lottery? Someone looking only at the odds will usually tell you that it is. Yet some small number of those people foolish enough to take the bad gamble do walk away with millions while those too smart to play the lottery have no chance of winning. Similarly, the odds are slim that one will die in an airplane flight yet people do die in air accidents. Whether one considers air travel "safe" or not will depend on whether they emphasize or dismiss the risks.
As long as evolution remains a theory and not a fact, it's not unreasonable to buck the odds based on a gut feeling any more than it's unreasonable to play the lottery or avoid air travel. It's only seems unreasonable if your focus is only on the odds of winning or loosing rather than the pay off if you win or the cost if you lose.