Irreducible Complexity (IC) suggests that certain cases of objects or systems of extreme complexity could not have spontaneously happened, because natural events are not truly random, but follow specific statistical and physical laws. These laws preclude their initial assembly by mere accident, because the steps are sufficiently long and complex, and the environments so delicate and unlikely, that the objects/systems must have been forced into existence by deliberate intent. Sentient and directed willpower is the simplest alternate explanation and most likely force to have made the environments and carried out the steps to create those objects (highly complex systems) .
This is an interesting video.
Here is a very good video response to this subject of "irreducible complexity":
However its not a scientific argument against Irreducible Complexity.
Its actually just another cleverly constructed propaganda piece with recent Evolutionist objections.
The very opening gives us a good idea what we can expect in what follows.
"Quote Mining" Darwin...?
0:00 - 1:20 min, The 'reasonable' sounding narrator with the English accent begins with a complaint against opponents about "quote-mining", although as expected, he names no offenders.
Apparently these unknown "quote-miners" misuse Darwin, because they quote his remarks about the apparent absurdity of an EYE evolving, out of context, and without qualifying statements..
We will take the narrator's word for it that he himself has provided adequate context:
The above shows Darwin did believe the eye evolved (obviously).
The last quote however, is not as unambiguous as the narrator would like:
First of all, it does seem rather clear that Darwin here concedes that
the 'evolution of an eye' does at least appear absurd, and since he is
addressing fellow-scientists, including brilliant physicists who opposed him,
it can't be portrayed as "stupid" or "ignorant" to have a healthy skepticism,
when it comes to the evolution of complex organs like the eye.
If healthy skepticism by other scientists weren't normal,
the narrator would not be making a useful point at all.
That is, if only stupid or uneducated or non-scientific people
doubted the evolution of the eye, or such opinions only were tenable
100 years ago, then how can this last statement have much meaning today?
Yet the narrator goes out of his way, not only to emphasize this point,
but repeats it twice more in this video, and uses the quote again,
as an apt summary of all objections to apparently implausible evolutionary conjectures or specific sequences.
If this statement is to carry the seriousness and profundity with which
the narrator intends it to hold, then by obvious inference,
its quite reasonable to be skeptical, not only of the 'evolution' of complex organs like the eye,
but also of any vague, suspicious, or implausible reconstruction,
including the whole general theory.
And this is quite a sensible position, because the very nature of real science
demands that we be skeptical of our current knowledge, in order to
effectively search for new knowledge.