I think what caught my attention most in this thread was the belief that irreducible complexity has some kind of legitimacy as an idea when it is favored by only a tiny minority among scientists (and I'm being kind), and it is not the focus of active research anywhere, including by Michael Behe, the idea's originator.
--Percy
What should have caught your attention and it obviously still has not, is that IC is a lesser component (a residual) of ID evidence deduced logically by an examination of the actual physical world. Order and purpose are exacally that, order and purpose. No approval on your part or a demonstration of or by a designer is required for evidence to be simply logical evidence. its evidence because its completley logical and testable as evidence, a designer, sight unseen
IC may simply be a complicated way of explaining an otherwise simple logical argument, the likes of which is irrefutable. This is why ID has and will stand any examination or test of time. Its logical, applicable and very demonstratable.
That is if you could only understand what constitues evidence. Tell me plainly dude can you?
Good day mate
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.