Parsimony is generally a good thing.
If anyone actually believes that irreducibly complex entities exist, they should be leading the research to reduce them. That's the way science behaves.
Indeed. And for the example we've been discussing, which hypothesis would "parsimony" favor?
If anyone actually believes that irreducibly complex entities exist, they should be leading the research to reduce them. That's the way science behaves.
Neither here nor there: we haven't been discussing "irreducibly complex" systems, but rather a case of intelligent design for which one can suggest two plausible explanations: both ID and naturalistic.
But what you seem to be saying is that "science" is completely uninterested in anything that can't be explained solely by naturalistic processes. That's a fine ideology, but it's really stupid science.