I don't think any scientist has the right to be condescending, or even dismissive. But those who want to cut a new path in the history of scientific modeling are reiterating material that was thoroughly hashed in Darwin's time, and has been re-hashed repeatedly, and they repeating this history because they haven't studied thematerial of its past incarnations.
The argument that intelligent design is obvious in the intricacy and genius of life-forms and is a necessary part of any explanation of such harmonious complexity, was raised in Darwin's era by Paley and was the subject of multiple books. It has been thrashed out. It is also one of the topics of The Blind Watchmaker as discussed above. Here's an excerpt from a review which says it better than I can:
"One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the universe is that of the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley: Just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. But as Richard Dawkins demonstrates in this brilliant and eloquent riposte to the Argument from Design, the analogy is false. Natural selection—the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered—has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature at all, it is the blind watchmaker.
Patiently and lucidly, Dawkins identifies those aspects of the theory of evolution that people find hard to believe and removes the barriers to credibility one by one...."