And THAT is exactly the kind of rhetorical dodge that exemplifies the evolutionist position.
You know what the concept means. Either explain HOW and WHY the concept is "specious," or give the proper "scientific" term that defines an equivalent concept.
We all know you won't and can't, but you'll still give yourself credit for refuting another "flat-earth" type with your superior intellect.
papertyger: "And THAT is exactly the kind of rhetorical dodge that exemplifies the evolutionist position.
You know what the concept means.
Either explain HOW and WHY the concept is 'specious,' or give the proper 'scientific' term that defines an equivalent concept."
The fact is that "irreducible complexity" is not a scientific term, but rather one coined by anti-evolutionists hoping to discredit the theory.
It's the same kind of argument as the media crying, "Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion" and then demanding that people prove to the media's satisfaction they're wrong.
And of course, the media will never be satisfied because they have no interest in being satisfied, only discrediting the administration.
And so with "irreducible complexity".
Any third grader can declare something "irreducibly complex" and use his inability to understand the explanation as "proof" he's right.
But all it really means is there's some pretty amazing stuff going on in biology, some of it not even our best minds can get around, and isn't it wonderful that God did not make it easy for us to figure out all his secrets?
Bottom line: "irreducible complexity" is a meaningless term because those who use it have no interest in accepting natural explanations for what we observe.