debunking irreducible complexity

The second video will not make all that much sense without first watching this first video...

Below Ken Miller debunks the irreducible complexity argument.  He proves that this complicated machinery of the bacterium can still function without 40 of the bacteria's 50 mechanical parts.  However, he conveniently fails to define the function of  what he "removed" for the sake of his presentation....the propeller that propells the bacteria to move about.  While leaving the inner motor, which runs the propeller, intact...what's the point of the motor if the bacteria can't move ...without the propeller? How is the bacterial flagellum now to be propelled?  Now, what if the propeller were to be left intact without the inner motor...or other parts of the motor?  Same problem.  Irreducible Complexity debunked?

Did you catch that? "It's not evidence, it's just a theory"...what he was getting ready to present as his debunking.  Even the most intelligent professionals will adopt insane arguments/claims to disprove what God has made plain to us all just because they would have to accept the sovereignty and authority of God otherwise.  Evolution is not an argument for science.  It is, rather, an argument in philosophy imposing denial of God's existence.