"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[Esquilax]

Whateverist. I think the good questions IDers ask are especially around what they call irreducible complexity; how did systems with complex mutual-dependency evolve? I think that's an area where evolutionary science is currently weakest (certainly in being able to produce good evidence rather than to propose possible solutions), though progress is being made on what may have been the precursors to, for example, the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/protein system (taking the most fundamental form of 'irreducible complexity'). Having people outside of science pointing to the weakest bits is, I think, actually useful: antagonists are often better at critical review; which is why Plato always developed his philosophy in a dialectic setting (developing his argument with Socrates arguing against his detractors).

There are also some more tangential, but interesting, questions raised by IDers about the nature of information though I think that philosophy rather than science is the better partner to engage with those questions.

So, do the IDers have any answers to those questions of irreducible complexity? Or any evidence to support those? How do they falsify their claims?

Because if they don't have any of those then what they're actually doing is begging the question, not science; they're taking something they see, arbitrarily defining it as irreducibly complex (read: "a thing that proves ID," because they have no way of actually determining whether something is irreducibly complex, after all.) by fiat and then stopping. It's just a convenient label, a tarted up version of "look at the trees!" with a sciency sounding gloss.

The truth is that there are big swathes of what real science is that ID does not even bother with, and that is why they don't deserve scientific attention. It's not whether their questions are legitimate ones for scientists to answer, it's that they cheat.