Gee, MMario, I'm sure the that the proponents of ID wouldn't mind your dismissing of any explanations as to what the nature of the complexity is, and the problems that Darwinian evolution does not adequately answer. Great solution on your part!

It is not science to say "I don't know, but I still conclude "this", even though "that" is both unanswerable and casts doubt on the ultimate conclusion that I desire". That's as religious as any religion.

I see many pitfalls with attempting to teach something as "intelligent design" -- something that, by its very nature is not a free-standing systematized theory, but is rather, by its very nature merely asking that science be forced to answer some good questions that it would rather ignore. But they are good questions. And I bristle at least equally at the patronizing, dismissive, insular way that "science" is avoiding rather than facing the questions, as I bristle at the notion of religion in the public classroom.