"Could you provide something a little more substantial with which to try to shoot down ID(Intelligent Design) and IC(Irreducible Complexity)?"
No.
For that is not my purpose. I do not believe that things in biology can be irreducibly complex. That is my understanding, and my belief.
I do not necessarily disbelieve in Intelligent Design. My question would be; if evolution can be seen as an effective method to provide variety among species, and the necessary change that lets them survive and prosper with challenge and time, then why cannot evolution be seen as an efficient method to design various creatures and entities?
I had to run out earlier and was going to get back to it then.
My question would be; if evolution can be seen as an effective method to provide variety among species, and the necessary change that lets them survive and prosper with challenge and time, then why cannot evolution be seen as an efficient method to design various creatures and entities?
It depends on what you mean by *evolution*. Allowing for variation within species which is a component of evolution, is not the same as adding information and complexity to evolve the organism or species.
A method that's efficient for maintaining something is not always efficient for building it. It would take more energy and work to build than maintain.
Allowing for variation within species to adapt to a range of environments would also require some stability. That would make it more difficult for building with the intent to change.
Of course, there's always the problem of the information contained within the DNA and where it came from. Using it for evolution would require adding information. Variation within species would need a set amount of information to work with.
I don't know if that is what you were thinking of with that question. I'll need to think about that more if you want more answer.