Actually, it does. Even by Behe's definition (in particular, *especially* by Behe's definition), evolution is perfectly able to produce "irreducible complexity".
Furthermore, most of Behe's "examples" of irreducibly complex systems are provably *not* "IC".
Behe's either a fool, or a huckster making bucks selling comforting books to creationists grasping for "proof" design. And neither option inspires confidence.
The fossil record indicates morphological stasis in species, in contradiction to the theory of evolution.
Horse manure. The fossil record indicates *BOTH* morphological stasis *AND* morphological change in species (contrary to what many creationists will try to tell you). And that's exactly what one would expect to find if evolution were responsible for modern life.
And this has been recognized since 1859. A little behind on your science reading?
Evolution simply lacks explanatory power.
ROFL! Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.
Then explain to me how transitional stages of development would benefit the creature (increase its ability to survive) in the following cases:
• The woodpecker's tongue that wraps around (over) its head. What would the intermediate stages have looked like (including the supporting biological systems) and how would they have benefitted the bird?
• The human eye. What would the intermediate stages have looked like (including the supporting biological systems) and how would they have benefitted human beings?