Mousetrap Soup for the Mind

Michael Behe used the mousetrap device as a popular example of an irreducibly complex system. The mousetrap with its parts working together with the sole purpose to catch mice was used to illustrate protein structure and function in biological systems such as the bacterial flagellum seen in the cell. I describe the flagellum motor on my post Irreducible Core.

Michael Behe describes how all elements of the system must be present at once in order for the purpose of the system to be carried out: "an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function."

I thought I'd buy a couple of mousetraps for my garage but after the fact Andi preferred me using granular bait instead. The idea of Camille or Gabe and friends getting their fingers caught, witnessing or removing broken mice from the trap was not too appealing to her. I'm easy to get along with so I complied. I could always use the mousetraps on Willed Induction I thought. Of course that was premeditated on my part.

Man has an idea on how to solve a problem - here mice coming into the garage. He designs, then builds the solution. The process occurs in the mind first (as opposed to the brain - let's use Christian talk), and it is then carried out in the physical sense. There is a lot that goes into making a mousetrap. Just like there is a lot that goes into making a bow and arrow system, or a working outboard motor like the bacterial flagellar motor. You can read my post Of Hurdles and Bolts to get an idea of what that process might look like.



So, the mousetrap first begins with a purpose in mind. While there are many types of mousetraps out there, this one captures 60% of the market worldwide. The 1/60th of a second deadly design is simply the most effective (watch it in slow motion).

There are nine parts to this mousetrap. Nine carefully crafted parts that fit together only a certain way. Much like a biological machine, the manufacturing process it takes to build each one of the parts is complicated in itself. First you have to find the raw materials such as the metal and the wood necessary to make the individual parts.



Then each part must be cut and, in the case of the wiring, twisted a certain way for the design to carry out its purpose.





Even the piece of wood and thickness is carefully chosen so that it is not too thin as to break under pressure, or too thick that mice are turned away. Holes on the board are at precise locations so that the pieces fit harmoniously.



I think you get the picture. It would be impossible (read: never in an infinite number of future moments) for the pieces to come together by chance, just like the human body or a simple cell cannot arise out of naturalistic small unguided evolutionary incremental steps. Chance knows no purpose.

Michael Behe continues "The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step, with no thought for their future utility. I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework. Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design."

Looking for a brand name -- Evolution proponents are like the skeptics who circularly keep asking "how do you know?" or "If there is a designer, who is it?" The thing is ID proponents do not need to go into the who or how questions for it to be science. The forensic scientist or the archeologist leave those questions for the detectives or the historians.

The fact that something is designed implies a designer no matter what, so it is irrelevant to the debate of whether something is designed, who did it or how it was done. While the design does not carry a flagrant brand name as the mousetrap does, the purpose of the design of human beings, animals, plant life, solar system point to an intelligent, cautious, very caring, personal creator. While studying biology, philosophy, world religions and observing people and places while traveling to Europe, North America, India and Africa, the person of Jesus Christ has become the most plausible person responsible. Some ID proponents are not religious, some believe in other types of deity. That's just my personal observation.



Resource: Behe, M.J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The Free Press, New York, p. 72.