[gore3000]

"In the real world, reducible complexity is far more useful, stable and important than irreducible complexity."

That may be your belief. That may a requirement for evolution also. However, the article does not say that. Also, everything we keep learning about life, shows that it is more complex than before. Who would have thought that we had duplicate sets of genes which are randomly passed on to the next generation? Who would have thought that genes were so utterly complex? Who would have thought that the entire organism was so closely interrelated? Certainly not Darwin, certainly not evolutionists.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The developmental process of an organism is definitely a program and could not have evolved at random.

Who would have thought that we had duplicate sets of genes which are randomly passed on to the next generation?

I'm sure I'm going to be sorry I asked, but which is it? Random or not random? Or are you saying an organism's DNA is not part of its development?

[eno_]

Read a book on this stuff. Wolfram shows you can enumerate every program in many simple systems and still get non-trivial results above a certain (and suprisingly low) threshold of complexity. Programs also tend to behave similarly. In other words, the popular notion of just bashing random locations in a complex program most likely resulting in garbage results is wrong. But, as these people show, evolution as the only input to how natural programs are organized is also probably wrong.