The Confounding Mouse Trap

Posted on Jun 14, 2013 in Johnsons from the Front | 0 comments

  Everywhere I look I see design in nature. At one time, I removed God from the equation and assumed that all design had happened through the processes of evolution. I began to believe (without much thought behind it) what I was taught … that small changes over huge periods of time produced the wonders of nature. My main argument with my ‘Jesus freak friends’ was “Given enough time, anything is possible.” But is this true? Just one of the many problems with evolution is the interdependence of different functions of any organism. On a molecular level this precept has been called irreducible complexity1 – for most biological features to operate there is a minimum number of parts or steps which must be present. Michael Behe explained irreducible complexity with the analogy of a simple mouse trap. The mouse trap has only five basic parts – the base, the hammer, the catch, the spring, and the hold-down lever. Yet if any of these parts is missing the trap will never function properly. Even if you had the needed 5 parts, you could put them in a paper bag and shake and dump them out for billions of years, yet you would never come up with a working mouse trap. For the mouse trap to work, each part needs to be performing the right job and be in the right position. The same is true for the clotting of blood and all of life on both a molecular and a macro scale. Bruce A. Malone explains about irreducible complexity and the chameleon tongue: “Evolution proposes two explanations for complex structures such as the chameleon tongue. “Phyletic gradualism” assumes small changes add up over time. “Punctuated Equilibrium” assumes structures stay the same for a long time (equilibrium) but then change rapidly without leaving any fossil record of the change (punctuation). Skeptics try to avoid the creation implications of irreducible complexity by showing that the individual parts of a machine could have other functions – thereby implying that the new function could develop in some step-by-step manner (either slow or fast). For example, in the mouse trap analogy: the base, spring, and hammer could be used as a crude tie clip; however, this does not explain how a tie clip could develop into a critter-killing machine. Nor does it explain how the other parts could be added one step at a time, with each step along the way producing a useful, functioning machine. If any intermediate “tie clip/mouse trap” link were not useful, natural selection would eliminate it from further development. So is the chameleon’s tongue best explained by an intelligent designer or by time and chance alone? Which possibility is really easier to believe?”2 When I really began to think about it and look at the evidence, God was the answer! The time and chance of evolution just doesn’t answer what...

Read More

We Have a New Location! 2140 Broadway, Unit B-103. Our phone number has not changed: 970-523-9943 / 800-377-1923.