I think we've hit the point where we are just going to go round and round on this but I'll try one last time on this point and the point about having one example to work from.
The idea of irreducible complexity hasn't been proven wrong. Doing so would require proving the negative, that no biological system in nature can't be explained by natural processes. I was not aware that modern biological knowledge was so comprehensive that it could claim that. What's been proven wrong (or at least unpersuasive) are specific candidates of irredicible complexity, not the idea, itself, even if you want to consider it a fool's errand.
No, there hasn't been one candidate of irreducable complexity that's panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionary biologists. But there also hasn't been on candidate of signals from extra-terrestrial intelligence that's panned out, either, and there sure have been negatives. Need I remind you, again, that such signals as those produced by pulsars where originally thought by those hopeful to find signs of ET intelligence to be created signals because of their regularity. They didn't pan out. That's a negative, no matter how much it might pain you to admit it. Yes, SETI has refined their criteria from those experiences and yes SETI has more candidates, but those may turn out to be just like pulsars -- natural emissions that at first look appear to be artificfial. And as our understanding of biological systems increases, ID may find more candidates for irreducable complexity, as well, or may determine some other criteria by which naturally evolved life could be differentiated from created life. That you seem to ignore this process of error and refinement in SETI (as if the entire enterprise has forever been confined to a singular search for a specific type of narrow-band signal) yet consider it damning for ID seems inexplicable to me.
And, yes, we have a single example of intelligent life from which we might wonder if there are other examples. We also don't have a single observable example of many of the processes assumed by evolutionary science because the conditions under which they happened no longer exist, or so forth. That absence of examples lead others to wonder if there might be other explanations to fill in those gaps.
The absence of knowledge or data makes us wonder about what we don't know. You are satisfied that evolution is sufficient to explain the presence of life on Earth so you don't wonder if another process was involved. Other's are not so certain, for a variety of reasons both good and bad, and do wonder. So they look for evidence of those other processes. You might consider that foolish. People who don't wonder whether extra terrestrial intelligence exists think SETI is foolish. Those who believe in global warming wonder how to stop it. Those who don't believe in global warming think they are foolish. By all means criticize the ID advocate, the SETI advocate, or the global warming advocate when they say something stupid or incorrect but this whole obsession over what is or isn't Science® is a bit silly.