irreducible complexity is not based on science - science doesnt shrug its shoulders and say this cant be explained (guessing that god just did it isnt a scientific explanation). science isnt just a collection of random ideas that people present so everyone with distinct views can party together. what is presented in science classrooms is fact and theory to explain fact; theory is based on extensive testing that has yielded positive results. i believe the main example id proponents use is the flagellum, but that has already been proven incorrect.

if they want to add another subject to study in schools (non science), they should work toward that. changing the definition of science so they can fit in adam n eve, astrology (whats your sign?) and magic isnt helpful to anyone trying to learn about science - real science.

__________________