In the past, I have commented that something seem to be irreducibly complex just means that we don't fully know how it work or how it formed yet. Some people have commented that I did not know what IC was and that IC was not an argument of ignorance.
But how is IC not an argument of ignorance? Many cdesign proponentists like to use the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system. They make this argument with the complete ignorance that we have an example of every step of the evolution of the eye from a few light sensitive cells in microbes to flatworm's light sensitive eyespots to the nautilus' eye without lense to the human eye. At this point, the cdesign proponentist would usually do one of the following: (1) shut the hell up or (2) claim that the examples we have of the evolution of the eye are nothing but islands between California and Japan, and that he would only accept it if he has a land bridge from California to Japan.
Again, how is ID not an argument of ignorance? You don't know about something so you argue that any part of it removed makes the whole thing useless.
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
™ Version 4.2
