Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.
What does identification of causation have to do with irreducible complexity? And what's irreducibly complex about forensic medicine?
Seems to me that if you've identified a cause, you're most likely looking at a "reducibly complex" item or event. It also seems to me that forensics of any type is the antithesis of irreducible complexity.
I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe.
Behe has been censored? When and how? He seems to be raking in some pretty good money from sales of his "censored" books.
In forensics study, one finds a potential crime scene. Within it are a mutlititude of factors thay may have for example lead to someone's death.
The arrangement of factors can upon examination grow to a level of complex relationship such that it is no longer reasonable to presume that the death was an accident. The array of observed factors is too complex to allow for chance as the cause.
Similar reasoning proceses are used to assess voter fraud. Are a set of flawed ballots and accident of deliberate? The task of proving deliberate fraud falls to establishing an array of complex causes that cannot be reduced to chance.
As I said before, most science draws on this type of reasoning process.
I am unsurprised to find that censored books are popular.