Ah, a perfect circle.
So the ultimate answer is that something is not science because the scientific community doesn't want it to be. (for earlier examples see the Big Bang Theory, J Harlen Bretz, and the Copernican Revolution.)
Of course, this has been the standard operating procedure of science for a very long time, as evidenced by Max Planck's quote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
What dan1123 said...plus...the situation facing Darwinists is far worse than simply a few instances of irreducible bio-complexity. As it turns out, all life is irreducibly complex, thus negating naturalistic explanations right out of the box.
Nice gambit.
Don’t address the question that you specifically requested that I clarify, instead claim that the rules of the game are such that my team cannot play.
OK. Do you have any natural science grounded articles or studies, of any variety at all, that would support the notion of irreducible complexity?
It is still OK to suggest that the natural sciences study the natural world, right?
Ah, a perfect circle.
The scientific establishment claims that all science must be from peer-reviewed articles.
They refuse to publish and/or fire anyone who considers ID.
Since no peer-reviewed papers exist (thanks to step 2), they declare ID not “science”.
I began to understand this when each and every peer review or mere criticism of evolution is attacked as being non- or anti-scientific and/or religious.
I’ve asked evo-cultists how they would recognize peer review from a creationist scientist vs. an evolution scientist if their work was submitted anonymously and there’s never been an answer from them.