My first post here so please bear with me I "learn" the forum. This topic of IC and ID has been very interesting ever since the Dover trial. One great explanation that I feel refutes this idea is Ken Millers explanation re: functionality of an organism. Example re: the bacterial flagellum's motor if IC is correct then by taking away any essential part would render the motor useless. Miller testified that not only is the flagellum functional without certain pieces of the motor, but evolution predicted it's predecessors were built up over time undoing the prediction and definition of Behe's example of IC. Link PBS discussion page:
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | In Defense of Evolution | PBS
So the prediction of evolution, which is that these complex systems are actually slapped together by scavenging pieces of different systems, turns out to be true. And the prediction made by irreducible complexity that none of these proteins would have any function until they're all put together and all work, that prediction turns out to be wrong.
Ken Miller
Miller uses a great example during the trial re: the mouse trap, take a certain piece away it ceases to be functional as a mouse trap but that does not limit it's function in other capacities such as a tie clip. (He actually wore this in the trial during his testimony).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko
Above is Miller's explanation
™ Version 4.2
