Proving irreducible complexity with a cell-phone


It appears you are stuck on the second step. You have failed to show that a second step can not be added.

(George) #204


God-guided Evolution is an example of non-miraculous creation … or at least those portions of it that are not punctuated by miraculous events engineered by God in order to keep creation “in sync” or “on track” with God’s purposes.


actually we can test it. if you will remove some of your phone parts till you will left with 2-3 parts- you will get no function at all. right?

(George) #206


No doubt, depending on which parts are removed, you can end up with a partial cell phone that serves no function for anyone… and that would be a good demonstration of why evolution has never produced a cell-phone.

But this is hardly an exhaustive proof.

You are missing two things:

  1. Irreducible Complexity as a concept can only be validated for those things that cannot have a path of useful functions on the way to becoming a complete evolutionary modification (eyes, wings, etc).


  1. It is only applicable in debates with Atheists who reject any involvement with God.

And you are still debating on the topic of Godless Evolution on a site dedicated to Evolution By God.


Still functions as a door stop.


only if you will involve intelligent. can it be functional in every step without any intelligent involved?


this is my point.

(George) #210


If you ever quote me like that again, I will flag your posts in a heart-beat!

I am quoting your incomplete view… which naturally makes me sound like YOU if you quote that part and intentionally leave out my qualifications. Here is the entire quote, AGAIN:

In other words, when you remove a specific part, and it looks like the “future phone” cannot serve a function as an “unfinished phone”, if it persists in the species it is because it serves (at least temporarily) some NON-PHONE function!

I can’t believe we are still talking about the dang phone… and what you don’t get about the analogy of Irreducible Complexity. The first time Irreducible Complexity was proposed by Behe, he was talking about mousetraps. And the reason he no longer talks about that example is because an incomplete mousetrap can still have other uses.

So … YOU, @scd, are the only one still talking about the simplistic (and erroneous) version of the Irreducible Complexity scenario.

If you don’t comprehend the limitations that Behe himself recognized … you will never get to talk about anything else… Has God spoken to you? Does he WANT you to spend your entire lifetime talking about incomplete cell phones?

(Jordan Mantha) #211

I feel like these conversation inevitably end up at the following, seemingly unsurmountable, impasse:

  • ID : some biological “systems” are so complex and built in such a way, that it seems impossible that an exact set of small changes would form the system without “external input”, especially as a part of an overall system that works via optimization (selection) based on functionality. The burden of proof is on those who claim the impossible is possible.
  • Mainstream Science: modern evolutionary biology is successful enough in making predictions, consistently validated by the data, and has enormous explanatory power, that there is no need to posit “external input”. We don’t know all (or even many) of the specific steps involved in the development of any particular system at this time, but as a whole it is reliable enough that the burden of proof is on those who claim an additional mechanism is needed

Does this seem right?

(George) #212


I think it would be fair to include a 3rd paragraph:

Something along the lines of “The issue is a footnote in the discussion of how does God-Guided Evolution fit into the Biblical text and timeline?”

Ideally, one of the responses to ID should cover the fact that @swamidass is a “no caps, i.d.” supporter, don’t you think?

(Jordan Mantha) #213

It just seems like too often, as you know, we get caught up in the other two and not enough on that 3rd item. I think i.d. and God-guided evolution (especially when combined with generally traditional theology) is a very interesting position, and doesn’t seem as well developed at this point which means productive conversations could be had.

(George) #214

One reason these conversations tend to be under-explored, or easily diverted, is that it is such a new idea on the battlefront of ideas… and because we hear tolerate “main-streaming” topics that are really footnotes:

We have already identified one footnote idea: can un-Guided Evolution be defended? (Yes, absolutely vs. No, Absolutely).

The second footnote idea is: can Science “see” or “demonstrate” the actions of God?

Both of these ideas are purely diversional … because Genealogical Adam scenarios can function whether the answers are Yes/Yes or No/No, or Yes/No, or No/Yes.

There should be a SEPARATE room for footnote discussions.


its bascially mean that we have no evidence that (natural) evolution is possible at all.

(Timothy Horton) #216

Ah. the standard Creationist whine. “Science doesn’t know everything therefore science doesn’t know anything!”. It’s hard to imagine anyone can be clueless enough to actually reason that way.


actually i think that mouse trap parts can be functional only if we involve designer. but even if im wrong it doesnt change the fact that a cell-phone cant evolve stepwise.

(George) #218


Children never forget their first imaginary friend.