No. And I certainly have no standing to judge. But I do get the impression from repeated rumblings in scattered reading over the years that, with regard to Darwinism, biology has become a field in which many people feel unable to speak openly. Officially, virtually everyone is a Darwinist. "Yessiree, Bob, we all be true believers here! No design, because our fundamental axion is that there can be no designer! Everything is an accident!" You won't get into a good graduate program, get hired by a good university, or get tenure if you do not affirm the party line.
But down in the weeds, the design inference refuses to die. Things look designed, and the deeper you go, the more complex and intricately constructed things seem to be. I don't recall who coined the phrase, but it is regularly muttered, sotto voce, that information seems to precede order, which is another way of saying, "it looks designed."
I don't know how the debate will develop, but there does seem clearly to be a silencing of dissent in the academy. That is, of course, a clue that the reigning paradigm is on unsteady ground. Another field where this is apparent is the study of intelligence, especially with regard to heritability, race and gender. A lot of people in the field know that the party line is a lie. But very, very few are willing to speak out.
To take one of the least explosive issues: there is a great deal of overlap on mental and behavioral dimensions between men and women, and there are outliers in both sexes. But in terms of averages across large groups, men and women have (slightly) different aptitudes and significantly different interests and priorities (e.g. desires regarding work-life balance, orientation towards children, risk tolerance, job preferences). Men and women, on average over large groups, tend to make different choices, and while some of this is likely due to social conditioning, some of it is almost certainly biologically based. Saying this, however, is a likely career killer at many universities and, of course, at Google. So people who know better are silent and, when ritual expressions of fealty to the party line are demanded in public, they lie.
What experiment can you do to prove the existence of a design or a designer?
You can think or feel or believe that there is a design and a designer, but how does that translate into actual science, rather than just assertions that there must be a design and a designer?
Another field where this is apparent is the study of intelligence, especially with regard to heritability, race and gender. A lot of people in the field know that the party line is a lie.
What if the opposing view is also a "party line" and a lie -- perhaps a bigger one?
Thinking of science in terms of mutually exclusive ideologies is part of the problem.