Kairosfocus, a regular commenter and now poster at Uncommon Descent asks, in regards to one of his posts,
“PS: Anybody seen a pickup from the usual objectors out there in the evo mat blogosphere? That might be useful . . . as they perceive IC as ID’s weakest yet most threatening point, I think.”
He’s right about “weakest” but wrong about “most threatening”. The IC, (irreducibly complex), argument is one of the least defensible positions the ID movement has taken.
Take the binary representation of the number 5, “0101”. If I change any bits at all, it no longer functions as the scalar value 5, proving it is a construction that is IC.
What about the binary 4, “0100”? If I change any bits here, it no longer functions as the scalar value 4, meaning it too is IC.
But wait a minute. If I change one bit in the binary 5 and get a four, what have I done? Have I moved to or from an IC structure? And what about going from a 4 to a 5? Are they subsets of each other?
How can a structure be called IC if changing a bit simply “changes” its function to another accepted IC function?
What about functions we don’t know about, like binary “0001” or binary “0000”, or binary “0111”? These are all legitimate constructs that function as scalar values, each of them equally irreducibly complex for any chosen scalar value yet all the parts appear in different structures with different functions.
I think with the “Irreducible Complexity” argument, the ID people are providing us with a very strong argument as to why ID itself, is a dead-end.
Uncommon Descent Dissent 
When Behe raised the issue of IC, he raised with respect to protein structure. There was at least a plausible “how can this work” question, though one that has been answered.
By contrast, kairosfocus is using IC without pointing to the biochemistry. He leaves the impression that he does not even understand IC.
Yes, IC is a very weak argument for ID, at least from a scientist’s perspective. But I think it resonates with the religious crowd, who mostly don’t know enough science to see its weakness. And that’s the audience that they are really addressing.
But I have to ask myself why do their scientists adopt it? You’d think that a lot of the technical people on their side would abandon something so unpersuasive and yet there they are flogging it.
You’re right about the audience of course and yes, it isn’t scientists. I think all these sorts of talking points are eventually going to be used on voters.