In answer to your last question, the "incremental steps" thing might work for lots of macro biological claims (like eyes), but as is (as you stated it) irreducible complexity could still potentially be found in the cell itself, since that doesn't technically start from scratch every time. Perhaps you should reframe your question to be more precise.

[How could something in the human body be irreducibly complex if everybody developed in small incremental steps before they were born?]

Because all the DNA that was necessary was already there from the moment of conception.

What's always confused me is the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction.  I know that there are certain plants that do this...and that frogs can jump sexes...but the formation of sexual reproduction still doesn't make much sense to me

"Many Id proponents have claimed a conspiracy in science has closed the door to them, but this article shows that even ideas that are viewed very negatively in the scientific community can come to be accepted if one actually does the research. There's a paragraph near the end that I think summarizes the entire debate very well:"

I think there is a crucial disanalogy between earlier fights against paradigms and IDT, IDT appeals to intelligence, and argues that no reasonable natural explanation is possible for cellular complexity. The earlier contenders were other natural explanations. They were rejected probably because they disagreed with the paradigm. IDT is rejected for deeper reasons, philosophical reasons such as methodological naturalism. So that paper was not really fair to IDT regarding their appeal to the public.

My beef with Big Science (BS) isn't it's rejection of IDT, but it's methodological naturalism. I think that to be charitable to Stein I'd say that that's what is beef is against too. And BS refuses to even acknowledge that MN is controversial, and its support is, at best, outside of science. And I think that to get BS to admit their philosophical stance and open themselves to real philosophical debate one might need to go to another power.

My dissertation advisor in grad school told me once: "If you can't convince your opponent that he's wrong, convince others."

@believeordoubt - 

Science, by definition, uses methodological naturalism. Science can study an effect if it effects the natural world and this effect is predictable. Anything that meats these two criteria is by definition natural. For example, If a god existed, he could have an effect on the natural world, but it would not be predictable. So, while science doesn't rule out supernatural possibilities, it will never except them as a paradigm. So if an Id proponent wants to wine about exclusion a priori from philosophy they could possibly make a legitimate case, but ID does not make specific enough predictions to even be considered as science. If Stein had had an issue with methodological naturalism, then he should have attacked science as a whole, and not evolution specifically. In fact, if he had had a problem with science at all maybe he should have been more honest instead of lying about how these people's lives were "ruined" when they really weren't.

I've been planning on doing a post on a very similar topic to this, I've just been too lazy.

Tony

Where do you get the "definition of science" anyway? Who made the decision?

Are you familiar with the history of science?

Do you have a problem in general with God as an explanation?

What would count as evidence for God's evidence?

That is, what would count as evidence for God's existence, if anything, on your view, if God is excluded from any sort of empirical confirmation (anything confirmation from the senses would count as rudimentary science)?

"Do you have a problem in general with God as an explanation?"

Indeed. Please see: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-102519600994873365&hl=en