The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

Please don't waste our time.  Dembski's argument explicitly appealed to design in its grounding premises.

It doesn't matter what anyone appeals to (including your appeal to Dembski); you are still responsible for the validity of your own arguments. The premise that the universe was designed could be true, and the conclusion that life is irreducibly complex still be false. Obviously—many Christians believe God used evolution in his design. Irreducible complexity is specifically an argument against evolution. There's no debate here, so please don't waste my time.

Fine. You want to waste time. Let's do it. Irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution because irreducible complexity is not an argument, it is a concept. Irreducible complexity can be used to support many things but commonly it assumes a dichotomy exists in which life as we know it is either the result of natural forces or design. Dembski is the most prominent, cited, and well known utilizer of the concept so it is legitimate to posit his example as the defining one. But no matter, all you have to do is cite someone in the literature who explicitly argues that both design and natural processes are not the cause of life as we know it. You cannot reference articles that do not mention design as that is an invalid argument from silence.

ps. Stop blowing smoke up my ass. Claiming that there is no debate while debating the matter is so transparently untrue that I don't think I could construct a more obvious lie with a bag of pretzels, a case of beer, and all night to do it. You feigned umbrage at my calling you dishonest before, and said that reasonable dialogue was impossible after such an accusation. You neglected an important point which is that if you are dishonest and telling falsehoods, you've already made reasonable dialogue impossible and calling it out has no effect. So in the interest of reasonable dialogue, I want you to acknowledge that your claim that there is no debate is false.

pps. Your counterargument is a non sequitur. People could believe that God used evolution in design and it could also be true that irreducible complexity is false and your claim that irreducible complexity is a hypothesis or argument against evolution still be false.