Besides that, to me the concept of irreducible complexity has a fatal logical/philosophical problem, it is based on a lack of knowledge, and therefore becomes an argument from ignorance, or a "design of the gaps" argument./QUOTE]
The irony evolution, big band are arguments from ignorance and "designs of the gaps"
It's a little complicated. Irreducible complexity is not fundamentally based on a negative, namely that there is no evidence for a naturalistic pathway (even though in fact no evidence, no plausible pathway involving a long series of intermediate forms each of which providentially had a certain alternate function, has been found in cases like the bacterial flagellum, despite much theorizing by Darwinists). Actually most theorizing has been restricted to handwaving, sequence similarities, etc. Anyway, rather than an argument from ignorance, it makes a positive claim, which can in principle be falsified, that is based on (a) gene knockouts, (b) reverse engineering, (c) examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure.
From Darwin's Doubt, Stephen Meyer:
"...the argument takes the following form:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example."
From Michael Behe's
article:
"....scientific reviewers have objected that an appeal to intelligent design is tantamount to “giving up.” For example, in the Forward Emory University evolutionary biologist Marc Lipsitch remarks:
"Behe] correctly suggests that a complete theory of evolution would include an account of how the intricate chemical systems inside our bodies arose (or might have arisen) from inanimate molecules, one step at a time. Mr. Behe’s question is a fair one, but instead of suggesting a series of experiments that could address the question, he throws up his hands. (Lipsitch 1996)"
Unfortunately, the point is made with circular logic: it depends on the presupposition that life is not designed, which is the point at issue. If life is not designed then, yes, a theory of intelligent design is ultimately a blind alley (if not quite “giving up”). However, if aspects of life are indeed designed, then the search for the putative unintelligent mechanisms that built them is the blind alley. But how do we decide ahead of time which is correct?"
We can’t decide the correct answer ahead of time. Science can only follow the data where they lead, as they become available."
Also, a logician and philosopher weighs in: "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." (Copi 1953,
Introduction to logic, Macmillan: New York).
Comment: Where has the data led, in this case? No plausible evidence of the supposed train of intermediates either theoretical or actual despite much looking and theorizing, so irreducible complexity becomes more and more certain.