re: #47 iceweasel

One of the problems with these ‘irreducible complexity’ arguments is that they attempt to draw an ontological conclusions from epistemological premises— that is, they move from arguing “We can’t understand X” to “Therefore, X is (such and such)”.

Bad idea. Failure to understand how X works is never a sufficient reason for drawing a conclusion about X’s nature.

The vast majority of the ‘arguments’ for ID are one form or another of this basic mistake: arguing from present lack of understanding, to positing a supernatural explanation.

Of course, you could say that this is the basis for religion as a whole, and so the flaw would naturally be repeated in the minor case. You could very well say that. I, of course, could not possibly say such a thing.