Yes IC is a powerful argument against naturalistic evolution though you don't have to go down tot the cellular level to demonstrate it.
Take the human body as a quick example, it's made up of a whole bunch of different things in order to do what it does.
So what came first?
The heart or the lungs?
The hearts pumps blood, the Darwinists say it started with a mutated cell that just 'pulsed' but what good is that?
What evolutionary advantage would be offered that the owner would pass that on to the next generation? And what good is a pulsing cell if it not connected to anything?
When the veins and arteries form? Why did they form? What's the point of having blood vessels of you have no blood (yet)? Where would the blood be pumped to anyway, unless of course the lungs mutated into being all the same time as everything else.
When I raise these questions with Darwinists they simply go on to explain that "I just don't understand evolution" and that all this stuff 'just happened' over BILLIONS of BILLIONS of years, a little bit at a time. Which of course is no answer at all, especially given the absence of observable, repeatable evidence to the claim.
It makes much more sense to concede the Genesis account is true followed by millennia of entropy since.
