Bottom line: "irreducible complexity" is a meaningless term because those who use it have no interest in accepting natural explanations for what we observe.
What the HELL does the intention of a user have to do with the validity of a term he uses? If the term, and the concept it describes, doesn't violate the law of non contradiction, regardless of whether or not it's being used properly the term is perfectly valid.
Calling a term "meaningless" for the reasons you do is nothing but petulance masquerading as sobriety.
I get it, you call "bulverism", but if we are going to give our false arguments their correct logical name, then "irreducibly complex" is an argument from ignorance.
"Irreducibly complex" means nothing more than this: "I personally cannot figure out how _______ [fill in the blank] could happen naturally, therefore it's "irreducibly complex."
papertyger: "Calling a term 'meaningless' for the reasons you do is nothing but petulance masquerading as sobriety."
Ah, I see that you too know how to wield a mean bulveristic ax.
What would CS Lewis say?
;-)