Again , you are not suppose to tell *ME* that mause traps are irrelevant...... contact the author of that article and tell *him*
Actually, the author has been told a number of times by articles published by scientific sources as in the following source.
The mouse trap is not relevant because it is a very simplistic mechanical anthropomorphic analogy. There is no relevance to the organic chemistry, genetics, or evolution of DNA. The processes of human engineering design of anything have nothing to do with the genetic evolution of complexity.
In simple terms, the arguments are intensely circular claiming an assumption that life is designed in the beginning by using anthropomorphic engineered objects such as a watch or mouse trap, and not demonstrating independently based on organic science and genetics without assumptions that it is necessarily engineered or designed.
In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe claims that biochemical systems exhibit a special kind of complexity - irreducible complexity - that cannot possibly have evolved and must have resulted from intelligent design.
ncse.ngo
Luckily we do not have to settle this matter.
It turns out that Behe's intelligent design hypothesis is the result of his failure to consider relevant natural processes when trying to account for the origins of biochemical complexity. This problem arises in turn because Behe thinks about biochemical complexity with the aid of a misleading mechanical analogy - the well-designed mousetrap. The mechanical mousetrap is to Michael Behe what the mechanical watch was to William Paley. And it goes without saying that machines have [anthropomorphic fallible human]
designers.
So how should we think about design and designers? We will argue first that the historical process of the intelligent human design of technological artifacts, such as mousetraps, needs to be sharply differentiated from the hypothetical magical process of supernatural design and creation
ex nihilo (literally from nothing). In fact, Behe's case derives its appeal from a failure to examine the details of the human design process. Naturally, he provides no details whatsoever of the hypothetical supernatural design process. Secondly, we will show why the mousetrap analogy fails to do justice to the richness of biochemical complexity. And thirdly, we will offer a conceptual framework that explains the origins of the
irreducible complexity Behe finds so mysterious (see also Behe 2000). The key, as we shall argue, is that most real biochemical systems exhibit a type of complexity that we term
redundant complexity: a form of complexity that results from natural evolutionary processes amenable to scientific study.
The Mousetrap Model of Biochemical Complexity
Behe's central thesis is that the biochemical systems we find in living organisms manifest
irreducible complexity. He further contends that processes of the kind invoked in evolutionary biology cannot explain the origin of
irreducibly complex biochemical systems. Behe explains:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional (1996: 39).
Behe contends that although intelligent design processes of the kind we find in engineering, for example, can give rise to irreducibly complex systems, evolutionary processes cannot.
Behe employs an analogy with well-designed mousetraps. A mousetrap has several components, all of which are necessary for catching mice. A precursor "trap" that lacked one of the components - the spring, the trigger, or the platform, perhaps - could not trap mice. Lacking even minimal function, it could not be improved through incremental adaptive evolution to become a functioning trap. We already know that mousetraps require intelligent human designers. Behe argues that functioning biochemical systems are like mousetraps. They could not have evolved through incremental adaptive evolution, and must be the products of super-human intelligent design. This argument, like all design arguments, has a surface plausibility. It is too bad that those who rely on design arguments have never taken the time to think clearly about what is actually involved in the intelligent human design of technological artifacts.
God is a Creator, not a fallible trial-and-error human engineer.