First, for those who argue that Charles Darwin somehow caused the hard-hearted competitiveness later labelled “Social Darwinism,” its chief exponent, Herbert Spencer, published his views at least as early as 1857, two years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species.
Second, the argument from negative consequences in Expelled is a fallacy. You can state that some fact leads to unfortunate results but that does not invalidate the fact. If evolution caused people to become cruel, it would still be true. But it doesn’t, any more than gravity causes ex-husbands to throw their children off bridges. Love, loyalty, and altruism within one’s community evolved as adaptive behaviours.
Third, there are more than two explanations for evolution. Some of them have been discarded along the way, e.g. Lamarkianism. If evolution were disproved, that would not make I.D. true. For one thing, I.D. makes no predictions. Whatever we find is shoe-horned into the “designed” category. Dembski’s doctored flagellum images don’t make the flagellum into a machine.
Finally, the physical analogue of irreducible complexity is an arch built of bricks or stones. Once you remove the scaffolding that supports it in construction, nothing can be removed without destroying the arch. Similar changes occur in biochemical systems. In 1918 a geneticist named Muller published the mathematical explanation for the way that evolution creates systems that become irreducibly complex over time, based on his experimental work with fruit flies. You can look it up in the peer-reviewed journal Genetics (Volume 3). Dr. Muller later won the Nobel Prize. Michael Behe denies the existence of the vast academic world of molecular evolution (conferences, university departments, and journals) which has developed over the last forty years, so he probably hasn’t read this paper either. An invincible ignorance of science seems to be the real pre-requisite for Intelligent Design believers. And a willingness to throw up their hands and say, “Beats me! Musta been a miracle!”
The current explanation of evolution, the Modern Synthesis, rests much more on the 150 years of work done since Darwin by hundreds of thousands of people pursuing thousands of lines of research in a dozen different fields. Selectively quoting that humble man won’t make evolution go away.
Science can not prove the supernatural, because the supernatural can not be counted on to show up for every experiment. If you could force God to show up and perform on command, you’d be controlling him. Since you can’t, you can’t include him in a scientific experiment. Science neither proves nor disproves religion. But a scientific mind is more likely to notice the lack of current evidence for God. Most scientists care no more for disproving God than they do for disproving Santa Claus: it’s not their department and they have other things to do.