Irreducible design is hardly new to human thinking as we design many things ourselves with just that feature as a result of the design.
An internal combustion engine is an example. It has several systems that must function at a minimal level of performance for the engine to function as a whole. Remove or reduce any one of these systems and the engine will not function as a engine.
Not only must the systems be present and functioning they must do so in a coordinated way with all other systems.
An internal combustion engine even with all systems in perfect condition won’t function. It requires a starter, not the motor that spins the engine, but some agent to overcome the inertia of the engine and start all the systems functioning.
The experiments of Miller and others as noted on FR do not change that simple fact of cause and effect.
A scientist mixes chemicals that came from a supply house in beakers made by a glass blower and shocks it with electricity delivered by a grid, all intelligently designed as is the very experiment it’s self.
So what role is being played by this scientist if not that of an intelligent designer? What kind of complexity does his experiment demonstrate?
All excellent points. But let’s not forget about the self-making part of the argument (which renders naturalistic evolution IMPOSSIBLE)!
Are you suggesting that if a chemist demonstrates a reaction in the laboratory, that this implies the reaction cannot occur outside the laboratory?