"Darwinism" is a construct of Creationists.
The fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution in all particulars.
And, finally, "irreducible complexity" does not exist. Or, at least, all examples put forth so far have been demonstrated to have evolutionary predecessors.
... but ignoring that for the moment, why do so many evolutionists treat ID theory like the boogyman?
Very simple. Scientists understand that it is not a scientific theory - it is not even a valid scientific hypothesis. Did you overlook post #114 directed at you? Do you want to try to address it now? Do I need to repeat it to you?
Already answered multiple times, but hey, what's 1,216,165,244 times between friends: You mean except for that annoying lack of gradualism that inspired Stephen J. Gould to come up with punk-eek in the first place? Come on, guys, if the fossil record supported Darwinism as it was proposed and as it's taught to kids in school and on the tube, it wouldn't have been necessary to explain the lack of continual transitions away like that. When you have twenty fossils of one species and twenty of its nearest "cousin," but no gradual succession linking them, you have a problem that even Darwin acknowledged as being the biggest argument against his theory. If Evolution were true as it's conceieved, finding two virtually identical fossils should be the exception rather than the rule.
And as for calling it Darwinism instead of simply evolution, we do so to avoid the third-grade mentality that refuses to distinguish micro-evolution from the Theory of Evolution.
And, finally, "irreducible complexity" does not exist. Or, at least, all examples put forth so far have been demonstrated to have evolutionary predecessors.
As is so often the case with evolutionists, your rhetoric far exceeds your evidence. I defy you to present a sequence by which the forty protein components of the rotary motor of a bacterial flagellum could come together one small mutation at a time, with each stage increasing (or at the least not decreasing) the organism's survivability, and then present the mathematical odds of each individual protein falling into just the right place in the right sequence to so advance the organism. Here's an article on the problem facing you on this one relatively simple organ on an extremely simple lifeform. Start adding up all those little changes that are necessary, and you end up with a real mess for Darwinism to have to explain away.