Lets just take a look at the "Defense" presented by the quoted Mr. Gilder, shall we?
In that Wired Article, Gilder wrote:
The Darwinist materialist paradigm, however, is about to face the same revolution that Newtonian physics faced 100 years ago. Just as physicists discovered that the atom was not a massy particle, as Newton believed, but a baffling quantum arena accessible only through mathematics, so too are biologists coming to understand that the cell is not a simple lump of protoplasm, as Charles Darwin believed.
Nonsense. Evolution Theory grows and expands in accordance with the precepts of Scientific Method, building on all that has gone before, correcting itself where misapprehension is discovered in the light of new findings, seeking ever more accurate answers while acknowledging there remain questions for which current understanding provides no answer. Precisely the same is true of physics, Newtonian or otherwise, or for any other true, academically valid, forensically sound, evidence-based scientific discipline. The atom itself includes among its attributes the quality of mass, as do many of its components. The individual atom and many of its individual components are not abstractly " ... accessible only through mathematics ... " but to direct and indirect observation and manipulation. Quantum Theory did not replace Newtonian Theory, it grew from, expands upon, compliments, and validates it. And neither Darwin nor intervening and contemporary biologists present the cell as a "simple lump of protoplasm".
It's a complex information-processing machine comprising tens of thousands of proteins arranged in fabulously intricate algorithms of communication and synthesis. The human body contains some 60 trillion cells. Each one stores information in DNA codes, processes and replicates it in three forms of RNA and thousands of supporting enzymes, exquisitely supplies the system with energy, and seals it in semipermeable phospholipid membranes. It is a process subject to the mathematical theory of information, which shows that even mutations occurring in cells at the gigahertz pace of a Pentium 4 and selected at the rate of a Google search couldn't beget the intricate interwoven fabric of structure and function of a human being in such a short amount of time.
Poppycock proceding from an otherwise valid observation. The mere existence of domesticated animals, crop vegetation, and decorative plants clearly, broadly, unambiguously differentiated from their naturally occurring direct ancestors, in some instances even to the extent of precluding crossbreeding, renders the assertion patently absurd.
Natural selection should be taught for its important role in the adaption of species, but Darwinian materialism is an embarrassing cartoon of modern science.
The "cartoon" is not scientifically based, constantly evolving, Evolution Theory, but the simplistic "This must be the answer because it is so much more comforting to me than to admit there are things we do not yet know" mindset that permits preposterous, disingenuous-to-the-point-of-dishonesty, thoroughly unscientific notions such as "Intelligent Design" and/or "Creationist Theory" to persist even in the overwhelming presence of resoundingly counterindicative evidence and the absolute absence of any forensically, academically, scientifically valid support.
What is the alternative? Intelligent design at least asks the right questions. In a world of science that still falls short of a rigorous theory of human consciousness or of the big bang, intelligent design theory begins by recognizing that everywhere in nature, information is hierarchical and precedes its embodiment. The concept precedes the concrete. The contrary notion that the world of mind, including science itself, bubbled up randomly from a prebiotic brew has inspired all the reductionist futilities of the 20th century, from Marx's obtuse materialism to environmental weather panic to zero-sum Malthusian fears over population. In biology classes, our students are not learning the largely mathematical facts of 21st-century science; they're imbibing the consolations of a faith-driven 19th-century materialist myth.
There is no alternative to science but superstition. Intelligent Design asks no qusetions, but rather denies the fact our current understanding is incomplete. The students of today in fact are " ... learning the largely mathematical facts of 21st-century science ... ", as they must, lest they fall to " ... imbibing the consolations of a faith-driven ... ", far, far older than 19th-century, myth. A scientific theory does not say "This unarguably is the answer", but rather says "As far as we can tell given current understanding, this appears to be consistent with much of the phenomomon at study. We're still working on it. Stay tuned for updates as they become available."