I disagree with the sentiment in the question as I think the argument makes perfect sense. However, that does not mean that I agree with the Intelligent Design argument. By making sense I mean that their arguments are comprehensible to scholars. Perhaps the examiner is really trying to ask if they are coherent given the present understanding of scientific data, in which case they might be challenged with the question as to whether their scientific research obeys all the rules of science. Are they not rather jumping to the conclusion they want from data that might be explained in other more ‘natural’ ways given sufficient time and more data from newer, more sophisticated, technology.
There are those, however, who would hold that Behe is on to something in that there would seem to be nothing that fully explains the existence of the cilium or of blood clotting, for example. They are therefore likely to say that they have a right to postulate the existence of an Intelligent Design in the micro universe that God put there for humankind to find and that for those who have eyes to see, they should see; an argument going back to the times of Jesus himself.
In conclusion, it can be argued that there is not enough evidence for or against the Intelligent Design argument given the present state of scientific evidence and that verification of either position will have to wait for another time.
This part is not quite as good and would probably achieve 8/10. Good points are made, but they are not developed. In terms of the levels of response OCR uses, it ‘considers’ more than one point of view, but does not have the ‘understanding and critical analysis’ or ‘range’ needed to be credited a level 5 mark.