There is an algorithmic test for IC proposed. Actually, more than one.<quoted text>
Correct. In fact, irreducible complexity probably exists - in watches and jet airplanes, for example. The question is whether it exists in natural system not constructed by purposive, non-divine intelligence and intention.
The problem the ID people have is two-fold.
First, claims of IC are falsifiable, but not provable. We don't have an algorithm or test for IC, meaning that even if we encounter it, we can't know that we simply haven't discovered the natural path leading to the observed complex system. But we can debunk a false claim if we do. How will that ever lead to a compelling argument for a god?
Second, they keep offering examples of possible irreducibly complex, which are later shown not to be. This underscores their lack of imagination and their hastiness in making such claims, both of which undermine their credibility.
Incidentally, people like lightbeamrider and whatever Riverside Redneck is calling himself these days (Stillborn Fifi?) seem to have a wrong concept of the IC. They're looking at the parts of a complex eye and calling the eye irreducibly complex when they need to be looking at the evolutionary chain from photosensitive dermatological cells to such complex eyes. The human eye is indeed irreducibly complex in terms of disassembling it, but not in terms of its evolution
If you are privy to a plausible Darwinian pathway for the assembly of a human eye by natural selection, I would like to see it. It needs to include the interdependent optic nerve and associated structure.
The rebuttal to examples of irreducible complexity I have seen are lame. Perhaps you have other proof.