I don’t think either of them proves the ID case, which would be very difficult. What they suggest is that the case for the purely materialist explanation is astronomically improbable, even with many billions of years to work with. So, what could be a more probable alternative?
I had already thought myself many years ago when I first ran into evolutionary theory that it seemed highly improbable, but with the development of cell biology the case is now much clearer.
I could never imagine how fitness could explain, for example, the development of an eye or wings. There would be no advantage in having half-developed wings or a partly developed eye that didn’t work yet, so why would these things continue to develop over long periods of time when they were actually a drag in the intermediate stages of development?
It’s far more difficult how you could develop dozens of highly complex biological molecules or amino acids, none of which have any purpose unless they co-exist with all the other molecules or amino acids. Even the simplest life forms are incredibly complex on the molecular level. Stirring the primal soup just doesn’t cut it.
>>I don’t think either of them proves the ID case, which would be very difficult. What they suggest is that the case for the purely materialist explanation is astronomically improbable, even with many billions of years to work with. So, what could be a more probable alternative?<<
I’m obviously not in charge but I would not have a problem answering that question for kids with “I don’t know but here are some ideas that have been put forward but for which there is no evidence yet.”
For example there is a theory in physics that there is no magnetic monopole - i.e magnetism never appears by itself but is always created by electricity. I remember asking a professor how it would change science if a magnetic monopole was discovered - we had a fun day (by nerd standards) showing the changes that would have to be made to various formulas.
That’s different though, than teaching that magnetic monopoles are real because we have good theory that shows magnetism only comes from moving electricity and never can appear by itself. Since the current theory is useful (i.e. it makes many predictions not made by any other theory) and a magnetic monopole theory has no supporting evidence, it would be wrong to put magnetic monopoles into science curriculum.
Its pretty much the same with ID. The current theory is useful and supported by evidence while ID is not so ID should not go in the science curriculum.
But I hope teachers don’t get too scared to answer questions.