I think you make a mistake assuming that anybody who favors the irreducible complexity theory, or intelligent design, is religious, or if they are religious, that that they automatically cannot also be scientific and/or logical on any topic. I think Christians are motivated to believe in intelligent design but they can make non-religious arguments for intelligent design that are logical. I read the God is Imaginary proofs and they were all logical except for the ones about evolution in which he, or they, appear to have no skepticism at all.
It isn't that intelligent design is impossible. It's that it doesn't fit the way humans and other species evolved. When we design something like a machine (or a computer, or a program), we work to remove defects and improve performance. But we don't see that with natural evolution. Humans have a host of problems and inefficiencies that demonstrate a decided lack of intelligent design. Indeed, our technology is our way to overcome the handicaps of our own bodies.
How do you really dispute the logic that is doesn't seem possible that all these random mutations occurred in such a way to create something useful. As they argue, part of an eye is useless, part of an important cell structure is useless. Random mutations have no goal yet evolution seems to suggest they can achieve a goal without even having it the first place. It seems like vision is something that would be have to be thought of in advance of a structure that allows vision. And this follows billions of times throughout the entire body with various organs and enyzmes and whatever that keeps life viable. A complex structure like an eye needs all the parts to come together at once and work together, and evolution can't explain how that happens.
This is incorrect. Evolution works by finding combinations that give an organism a survival/reproductive advantage. Once such an advantage is created, further changes can then improve it, either by making it more effective (adding functionality), or making it more efficient (reducing unnecessary baggage). That's how an organ like the eye could have developed naturally; by having successive mutations give it additional functionality (for example, being able to see at night, being able to differentiate colors, being able to resolve see shapes rather than patches of light and dark) and increased efficiency (by removing inefficiencies in the way it developed).
Now, the God is Imaginary makes the point that if complexity means there must be a God or a creator, then who created God or creator. They say this disproves the irreducible complexity argument as regards to life on earth but does it? What if something did create the creator of us? It is only conjecture to assume that nothing could have created something that might have created us.
This is certainly true, but then you're following an infinite progression. If creator
2 created creator
1, what created creator
2? Sure, you can answer that with creator
3, but then you have the open question of what created creator
3. There are only three reasonable answers to this dilemma. First, you have an infinite progression, where you have creator
n creating creator
n-1 and being created by creator
n+1; second, you have no creator; third, you have a loop where something ultimately caused the creation of itself.
I don't think Darwinists have proved their theory anymore than Christians and other religious people have proved there is a God. It seems like they conflate natural selection and variation within species with cross species evolution.
Do you actually understand evolution? We aren't talking about a dog eventually evolving into a cat, or a spider into a fish. We're talking about a precursor organism that differentiated into two or more closely-related species (such as whatever the precursor for primates was). And this precursor organism would have been much closer in terms of genetics to other precursor organisms, thus creating a divergence between them that would have come from an earlier precursor organism, and so on and so forth. Naturally, the reality is much more complicated than my example.
It seems impossible that evolution would result in a man's private parts by random and then female private parts by random and then the sex drive resulted by random chance and then pregnancy resulted by random chance. It seems like the plan had to be reproduction from the start for this result to occur.
No offense, but this clearly demonstrates that you do not understand how evolution works - you are approaching the subject from ignorance, and are claiming that the accumulated knowledge we have on it can't be correct even though you don't really understand it. Your arguments boil down to, "the eye is too complex, so it must have been designed" and "sexual reproduction can't have happened by accident, it must have been planned", which are both textbook arguments from incredulity.
I am not saying "don't ask questions", I am not saying, "follow blindly". Questions are good, keeping your eyes open is also good. But you need to work to educate yourself on something that you don't really understand, not simply declare that it doesn't make sense or that it's impossible. So your questions should be aimed to help improve your knowledge base, rather than dismissing parts of the knowledge base because they don't make sense to you.
Why is reproduction even necessary in terms of survival of the lifeform itself? It isn't beneficial to the original lifeform from its own survival to produce offspring. I also have read that the more primitive asexual forms of reproduction are actually more efficient than sexual reproduction in terms of number of offspring so why wouldn't evolution favor that type?
It isn't "necessary", but it gives an evolutionary advantage. Genetic recombination (from two or more parents) provides a better chance at long-term species survival than simply creating clones, because those clones are going to mostly be copies of the original, and thus vulnerable to a disease, a toxin, or a genetic abnormality. It's like this; if you have a whole bunch of organisms that are almost all the same, then they'll have the same strengths and weaknesses (mostly). Look at the way we use antibiotics to kill harmful bacteria, for example. The only survivors are the ones which had a lucky mutation, since they have no way to recombine their DNA. So when humans get hit with a disease, you have some which are very vulnerable (say they have two recessive copies of a gene), some which are not very vulnerable (they have one recessive and one dominant), and some which are not vulnerable (they have two dominant copies). You'll have a lot more humans which are resistant or immune to it than you would if we used asexual reproduction.
