If that is the intent, I don't think it will work. I suspect those who take this class will be quite versed in ID and evolution, and will not let the lecturer get away with B.S. comments denigrating ID.
I think it will go a lot deeper than that. You can support ID all you want, but there are these pesky things called facts that get in the way. If they want to go down the road of irriducible complexity, then that will open the door to all these metabolic pathways and the whole realm of genetics and biochemistry, including cutting edge research. Even ID cannot answer the question of the origin of the necessary complexity of the designer. Since ID claims evidence of design is everywhere base simply on how complicated things are, then those same arguments must be applied to what they describe as a designer.
How just plain old questions, or is that off limits as denigrating ID as well?