I think he is saying that if he is talking about irriducible complexity as an argument just screaming Dover is not helpful. I’d agree. There are major problems with that argument. Intiating a fire drill prevents us from making that clear. Pushing those conversations into charged conflict detracts from our ability to stamp out bad arguments.
At the same time, if someone complaines about anti ID bias, they should not be surprised if this causes us to bring up Dover. Whether it’s fair or not, Dover is one major reason ID is not liked. Silencing that fact does no one any good.
It will take judgement to how and when to bring it into conversation. I’ve looked closely at ID arguments. There is no reason not to take them seriously. They often have errors that arise in understandable ways, and can serve as important object lessons that increase public understanding. Even if they end up being right in some cases, they are not scientific arguments and have no place in public schools.
Crying Dover to disrupt explication of them doesn’t ultimately work. It just confirms fears that they aren’t being heard, and discourages scrutiny into there claims.