The fact is, however, that once you strip the intention behind irreducible complexity (lest you commit the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy), the idea, fancy as it may originally sound, is still ultimately nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity: taking your own inability to explain a phenomenon or process, or your lack of imagination, or simply your ignorance of the scientific literature, as the basis upon which to pretend to have found an answer that's just conveniently consistent with your religious beliefs.
And when it comes to evidence, even the examples shown by its proponents turn out, surprise surprise, not to be irreducibly complex...
And just remember that if you want to draw an analogy between a human designer and god as a designer, logical consistency requires that in both cases the designers must be more complex than their designs, in which case you'd be 'explaining' complexity by presupposing even more complexity.
Call me silly, but 'solving' a mystery with a bigger mystery only aggravates the problem, it doesn't solve it...
And if you're interested, here is a description of the self-assembly of the bacterial flagellum.
Update: QualiaSoup, the creator of this and other wonderful animations, has also produced a response to 'objections' creationists have voiced against his portrayal of irreducible complexity:
As one commenter said, you don't fuck with QualiaSoup :)
.
Update: QualiaSoup, the creator of this and other wonderful animations, has also produced a response to 'objections' creationists have voiced against his portrayal of irreducible complexity:
As one commenter said, you don't fuck with QualiaSoup :)
.