Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions, yikes!
I was making fun of Dawkins squirmy backtracking in "Expelled", pushing the problem of irreducible complexity off earth and on to some other planet. He squirmed and proposed this scenario because he is unable to even allow the alternative scenario of a supernatural intelligence behind creation.
From what I know of ID, the goal is to simply show that Chance + Time cannot answer what we scientifically observe in the universe. After that you are on your own....God, Gods, reincarnation, afterlife, whatever etc.
I cannot engage in conversation with someone who isn't able to recognize incoherance in his / her position.
In other words, I'm outta here.
Why bother when "irreducible complexity" is no problem? IOW the original IDer claim -- that an IC system (one where all parts are necessary to the function of the system such that none can be removed) cannot be created in a stepwise fashion -- is simply false. (IDers will often admit this when pressed persistently by a skeptic, even if they remain content to use this falsified trope on the sheeple.)
There are in fact several ways to generate IC systems by small steps. For instance the addition of parts or steps that are not initially necessary (only helpful) but which later become necessary due to other changes.
Or there's the removal of scafolding. Simple example the later would be a stone arch built around interior stones later removed. The final arch is irreducibly complex (every stone is essential to maintain the arch) but it was formed one stone at a time.
Functional shifts provide other paths. (Think of the arch with the interior stones still in place as not a disfunctional arch, but a functional wall.)