It isn't possible to rebut a theory that, BY DEFINITION, can have no evidence to support it.
Then again, it isn't necessary either.
"It isn't possible to rebut a theory that, BY DEFINITION, can have no evidence to support it."
Irreducible complexity is a perfectly viable theory which could be rebutted is there was any contrary evidence to its central premise that there are collections of novel features that are meaningless relative to survival of the species (which is what Darwinism claims is necessary for such a collection of novelties to be propagated with any certainty) for which neither natural selection nor any other feature of Darwinism can explain.
There also appears to be a misunderstanding of the use of the term "intelligent" in "Intelligent Design." The ID theorists do not make the same necessary association with deity that the anti-ID forces seek to ascribe to them. The term "intelligent" refers to the presence of some factor beyond random happenstace in the origin of the species. As a matter of fact, the manner in which Darwinism is explained in many quarters has moved beyond randomness (which was Darwin's premise) and into "intelligence." In true Darwinism, variations naturally occur all the time as a matter of random processes. When those random variations improve the viability of the species OR when they are, by happenstance, expressed in a population which has survived over competitors for unrelated reasons (such as competitors being decimated by disease or natural disaster), the variant flourishes. However, I have personally been witness to the use of terms such as "need" and "require" by Evolutionists, including professors and lecturers, in expressing the impetus behind Darwin's random variations. In effect, the failure of Darwinism to survive modern genetics has forced Darwinists into their own claims of "intelligence" in the process.