WJM reminds us of a couple of famous design theorists: Darwin and Dawkins. All that follows is WJM.
For that matter, even Charles Darwin argued that the existence of a single IC system (though he didn’t use that word) would falsify his evolutionary hypothesis:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
(I thank Peter S. Williams for researching some of the following points.)
. . . Richard Dawkins . . . wrote about “Mount Improbable,” [and] acknowledges that CSI is a good indicator for design? He writes:
Of all the unique and, with hindsight equally improbable, positions of the combination lock [complexity], only one opens the lock [specification]. . . . The uniqueness of the arrangement. . . that opens the safe, [has] nothing to do with hindsight. It is specified in advance.
According to Dawkins, the best explanation of an open safe is not that someone got lucky, but that someone knew the specific and complex combination required to open it. Directed Panspermia and “God
Dawkins explicitly acknowledges that CSI is a valid criterion of design detection:
specified complexity” takes care of the sensible point that any particular rubbish heap is improbable, with hindsight, in the unique disposition of its parts. A pile of detached watch parts tossed in a box is, with hindsight, as improbable as a fully functioning, genuinely complicated watch. What is specified about a watch is that it is improbable in the specific direction of telling the time. . .