About half the general public accepts evolution.
If a person cannot explain the "irreducible complexity" argument, and why evolutionists discount the "irreducible complexity" argument,
Can you explain why evolutionists discount the "irreducile complexity" argument?
Because it has been thoroughly debunked and is now accepted only by ID freaks.
Yes! As a matter of fact, I can.
Other people can do it better, but I can still do it.
"Irreducible complexity" can actually be defined somewhat objectively, which puts it a step up over other creationist nonsense. Anything that is "irreducibly complex" is that which is made up of multiple parts, and its function cannot take place if any of those parts is missing. We still don't know exactly what a "part" is (if it's "anything such that the machine can't function without it" it would be a tautological definition, which is why I say IC is only somewhat objective)
In other words, if there are five pieces in a machine, and I remove any one of those pieces, the machine would not be able to function. Therefore, that machine would be irreducibly complex. Presumably, things that required twenty functioning pieces would be more complex than those that required only five, but all would be irreducibly complex.
Michael Behe is the main proponent of Irreducible Complexity as the Darwin-killing theory that proves evolution is just not possible, even given the existence of micro-evolution. It is important to note that Behe says that IC still can't evolve, even from micro-evolution (which means he accepts micro-evolution as a premise for his argument, which means evolutionists can assume it as well).
Imagine if you will, the following map:
Key:
Grass: .
Water: w
Town A: A
Town B: B
................... ................... .......ww.......... ......wwww......... ...A..wwww..B...... ......wwww......... .......ww.......... ...................
You might say, there is no way to walk from town A to town B, because there is a lake in the middle. In fact, an "as the crow flies" route would be impossible to walk.
This is basically what Behe claims, that there is no direct way for the distinct elements of an irreducibly complex system to evolve, because on their own, the elements would not benefit the organisms until all of them are in place.
But this argument is rejected on a number of grounds. For one, the components of an irreducibly complex system are not necessarily useless by themselves. Often they serve some other fuction. See, for example, the bacterial flagellum, whose base is the same as a cytotoxin pump.
Another reason to reject "irreducible complexity" is that not all evolution takes the direct route. For instance, to get from town A to town B, maybe you would walk to the north of the lake. Likewise, IC systems might evolve by first developing as overly complicated systems with redundancy in them, and only later lose that extra complexity once the system's basic function was in place. In other words, the IC system's function would have been carried out by a non-IC system before evolutionary pressures favored mutations that led to the less complex IC system. It's easier to imagine IC systems evolving from overly-complex systems that already have the function in question than evolving from scratch.
In fact, software designed by evolutionists (design, ha ha ha, laff it up, it's illogical but have your laff) suggests that an Irreducibly Complex algorithm can be the result of small, incremental evolutionary changes similar to micro-evolution (which Michael Behe accepts when he says that IC systems cannot evolve from micro-evolution). In other words, both logic and scientific experiments show that IC can be achieved through micro-evolution.
Okay, now it's your turn :-)