Irreducible complexity is evidence of design.

Unfortunately, CON has yet again strawmanned my argument. In R3 I explicitly rejected definition one on the grounds that it includes some instances that are not irreducibly complex. Definition two I endorsed. Definition three I will agree to only if the clause "each part is indespensible" allows that if even *one* part *is* dispensible, then irreducible complexity does not obtain. I never claimed to be an intelligent design advocate; nor did I agree to the definition of irreducible complexity as meaning "anything an ID advocate may have said on the subject". I specifically defined irreducibly complex as something that *could not* have arisen through an evolutionary pathway. Onwards... "This incorrectly assumes that if evolution is disproven, intelligent design is the only possible explanation. The fallacy of false dichotomy is blatantly committed." "Intelligent Design" the theory (with all the Christianity and baggage attached) is not what I am advocating at all. There is a dichotomy here but it is not false. Either something is capable of developing gradually, through small changes, or it is not. If it is not, and shows complex function, it must have been designed by someone. "If the definition of IC is as you have suggested, then surely they have set themselves in an unfalsifiable position -- let's ignore everything that is reducible, but do a victory dance whenever we find an irreducibly complex system. The whole argument reduces to a classic "God [or Intelligent Designer] of the Gaps". In other words, "if we can't explain this system by evolution then it has to be designed."" Again, this is not my position at all. I have not made any claims about the truth or falsity of evolution. My claims in this debate have been purely hypothetical. *IF* something is found, which *could not* have developed gradually, and yet it has a complex function, it is irreducibly complex. This is a perfectly testable claim, at least in theory. Take any candidate for irreducible complexity X and break it down to its constituent parts (A,B,C,D,E). Proceed to knock out the function of one part at a time, while leaving all the others(A,B,C,D; A,B,C,E; A,B,D,E; etc). In this case there are five possible configurations. If none of those configurations can be found to have *any* function whatsoever, then X is irreducibly complex. Note this is not simply a case of "I can't imagine how this evolved"; it is in fact a case of "this could not have evolved and here is why". The second is a much stronger claim and much harder to prove, but it is necessary to show irreducible complexity. Once that burden is met, one can indeed say with confidence that the object has been designed. Even if the burden could never be met- even if no one could ever prove that something were irreducibly complex- the logical relation between irreducible complexity and design would still obtain. According to the resolution, "irreducible complexity is evidence of design". It says nothing about whether or not irreducible complexity exists in nature, or even whether or not we are capable of proving that something is irreducibly complex. "if the definition of IC is as my opponent proposes, then this debate loses all that it is worth. I have no real issue with his position, howbeit we are thrown back at square one, in which IC is merely an argument from incredulity or ignorance. In which case, we might as well be but compelled to the conclusion that, IC is, in point of fact, evidence for nothing at all." This is not so. While showing that something is irreducibly complex doesn't tell you anything about the designer, it is necessarily evidence for design. This is not an argument from incredulity or ignorance at all, it is an argument from logic and common sense. Given my definition of irreducible complexity, we *know* that the object could not have developed gradually. Given modern science we *know* complex functional objects don't spring into existence fully formed. Given these two facts, and confronted with object X the only reasonable conclusion one can make is that of design. CON has failed to show how an instance of *actual* irreducible complexity is not evidence for design. The fact that some ID theorists define it sloppily, in ways that would include instances that are in fact reducible, does not change the meaning of the term, nor does CON's accurate critique of ID theorists claiming certain things to be irreducibly complex when they are not. Many things that aren't irreducibly complex are claimed to be so, as my opponent has shown. However, this has nothing to do with the relation between irreducible complexity and design. Consider the resolution affirmed.