That’s complete bollocks.
Most of the people you disparagingly refer to as “disciples of evolution” are fully aware that most of the supposed examples of ‘irreducible complexity’ are not in fact not irreducible (the Dover transcripts help a lot),that the ID simplification that components get added one-at-a-time and never change is a ridiculous misunderstanding of how evolution happens, that irreducible complexity is achievable by modifying existing components, and that it is not only an expected outcome of an evolving multi-part system but was actually described and predicted by Herman Muller in 1918, some 60 years before Behe wrote his book![1]
We aren’t in the slightest bit ‘allergic’ to arguments involving irreducible complexity, because they are soft balls that can be hit for six with minimal effort, and the only problem with dealing with them is the usual tendency of creationists to refuse to listen, and instead ignore the responses in which their pet ‘arguments’ are completely dismantled and repeat their false claims later or elsewhere as if they had never been addressed.
So if you think arguments about irreducible complexity “make ToE look rather feeble” that’s because you’ve never bothered to look beyond the ID bafflegab, or even look at that in any detail, and so haven’t got the faintest idea what the actual responses to raising an ‘irreducible complexity’ argument will be.
Some of us are also aware that irreducible complexity was a creationist concept, and that Behe cribbed the idea - including the use of the bacterial flagellum as an example - from a paper in Creation Research Society Quarterly. ↩︎