Not debunk, perhaps, so much as reject as an argument. I've said before that I'm not convinced that people actually know what is "irreducibly complex" yet, so anything held up as a particular example (the eye, most famously) turns out not to be so many years later.
When science is genuinely finished (ie never, hopefully), then you'll know what is irreducibly complex, not before.
Essentially this is the same rejection as would apply to the fine-tuning arguments, which is that the amount of fine-tuning required is not really understood until the "final" physical laws have been understood themselves.*
To cut a long story short, any chain of argument that runs something like
"the current state of science cannot explain such-and-such a phenomenon, therefore it's never going to be able to (without invoking an apparently stupid theory eg like the multiverse), therefore God", is fundamentally broken at its starting point, confusing as it does the currently unexplained with the never explicable, and not worth taking seriously as an argument.