re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident

quote:

---

irreducible complexity arguments based on examples debunked a decade ago

---

ehh, not exactly. while you might could make a speculative case against the ic of a single system such as the eye for example, as in dover v kitzmiller, there is such a thing as cumulative case. these systems, some of which still defy evolutionary explanation, start to build a cumulative case that leads to a pretty obvious conclusion.

moreover, the case against the ic of the eye, et al, start with certain ground level components. the idea of ic starts with nothing and gets something complex. whenever opponents try to explain how something complex could be constructed/reproduced by scientists, they are actually making the case for id.