Irreducible complexity

I was very much a subscriber to irreducible complexity as a Christian. There are many creatures, appendages, and organs which i could see no logical path for their evolution like the long neck of the giraffe and its small heart-like organs used to keep its blood flowing properly or the bombardier beetle and its explosive concoction of chemicals it uses for defense.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept, irreducible complexity basically a concept that systems could not have evolved because each piece is needed in order for any part to be functional and all parts cannot be functional throughout the evolutionary process meaning it would not be selected for.
I subscribed fully to this idea.
I used to describe it to others like this:
The wing of the bat works great as a whole, but in the evolutionary process it doesn't function and works against its survivability.
Imagine it's a mouse-like critter with long fingers and webbing, at some point it wouldn't yet be a wing and would impede the animals movement and it would reduce its survivability and we would have no bats.
Enter Wallace's flying frog.
It's pretty incredible amphibian that can glide up to 50 ft. And amazingly enough it's in that sweet spot of webbing to wing process. Isn't it crazy that a little further down the evolutionary tree we might have a full fledged flying amphibian?
As you can tell, it's not that a bats wing couldn't evolve, it's just that i lacked the imagination to understand how it might have happened. It probably didn't help i had a pretty strong confirmation bias against it.
Now I don't know if anyone else is using the bat's wing as an argument for irreducible complexity but christian scientists use a lot of other animal features such as the unusual aspects of woodpecker physiology.
In the same way the story I assumed spoke to the concept against evolution, the entire concept is flawed by a lack of imagination.
The truth can be just as strange as the fiction and our search for it shouldn't stop at our lack of evidence for the specifics of the how. Where we don't have evidence lies the starting point for truth, not the end of a path to a deity.

Blind faith

Many times I see Christians think that a believing evolution requires blind faith. I've read and heard over and over that evolution is just a theory or less and Pascal's wager weighed heavily on me throughout my transition beyond faith.
I need to constantly reevaluate what I know because I have been wrong in the past. I cant settle for the knowledge I have because I may be wrong, I have been before.
So, is my faith now in science? Or the scientists?
First, it's important to note that faith is a belief not based on proof or evidence. I can say with certainty I do not have faith in science. I analyze the evidence presented by it and make the best judgment from there.
One thing I know is that mankind is a prideful species and every scientist lives for a big discovery. If one scientist can prove another wrong they will gladly do so. Would it be easy to prove evolution false? No. There is mountains of evidence supporting it. The theory is so solid at this point it would take a lot to disprove it. One giant leap in the right direction to put some doubt in the theory and give the flood story a little more credence is if any fossil ever were found out of order in the geological layers.
I believed as a young earth creationist that the flood was fact and that it was the primary cause of the layers we see in the earth today. The flood story offers a lot of explanations to what we see around us when limiting earth to a 6,000 year time scale (aside from the god of the gaps idea.)
There's one huge glaring problem though. In a flood the water moves everything chaotically. If the flood was truth, we would still find tons of fossils, but they would be mixed up, as if there was no order to how life evolved. We would find mammals  prior to the Triassic period and some dinosaurs in the most recent of rock deposits. We don't find that in reality. If we could separate the geological layers like sheets of paper we could watch evolution occur like a flip book.
Even for animals as unique as the platypus we can view its evolutionary progress.
By the flood account, this is not possible unless God purposely made it that way, in which case it is a lie fabricated by God to lead people away from the Bible, which is contrary to everything I believed about God.
When I was studying through all this information,  I wanted to believe the creation story. I tried my best to reconcile what I believed with reality, but it just didn't match up.
Another big thing I learned during the process of learning about the origins of life as we know it is that evolution is a theory, but not as Christian leaders taught it. Evolution is a theory the same as gravity, planetary movement, or the expanding universe are theories. Gravity exists, you feel it's forces constantly, and not believing in it doesn't make it untrue.
I remember once in high school I was talking to another student about God and she said to me that her faith was that whatever you believed was true to you. I asked if she believed the chair she was sitting on was there, and she replied in the affirmative. I then asked, if I didn't believe in the chair would it cease to exist. She replied in the negative of course. I said it's the same with God and she said just because I believed, doesn't mean he exists.
Pascal's wager basically boils down to the idea that belief in God is better than non-belief because there is a lot more to gain in faith.
I love the idea that I could live forever. It is a wonderful thought that I could have eternity, but I cannot believe in God because I like the idea, and it doesn't make it true just because people believe.
I was in prayer constantly over everything in my life and it was easy to find a correlation with real world events. I didn't understand that I was creating an enormous probability that would be true. It all seemed real until I heard about an experiment with pigeons who developed their own "prayers" to get food.
I was doing the same thing as these pigeons. It just seems like God is there because I'm connecting the dots I created in the first place.
Over a long enough time scale you a correlation can be found between lots of entirely unrelated events, but it doesn't prove they're related.
So how can I be sure that evolution isn't just that, a correlation of unrelated events over time? The evidence. Evolution is reinforced constantly through DNA, dating methods, and fossil evidence.
My views on evolution are based on anything but faith. It's all based on evidence.
The fallacy here is in not knowing that all faith is blind. By definition it does not need proof. But believing, unfortunately, does not make it so.