@rosborne979,
It's pandering to true ignorance because the argument that things are too complex to have evolved is silly for the faithful. The real argument is about the social consequences of belief and unbelief, there being no neutral ground outside of apathy. And bearing in mind that it is not only possible but quite common to voluntarily suspend unbelief.
The reason anti-IDers concentrate on this their favourite straw man is to avoid having to think about the fundamentals. That's because they cannot say they want unbelief because they have not experienced an unbelieving society. It's a utopian fantasy with no foundations or structures.
And, of course, because it's a sitting duck.