Creation Station
Education and Current Events
Mousetrapping Evolution
In
his book, Darwin's Black Box , Michael Behe used the example
of a mousetrap to show the impossibility of the
evolutionist idea that life arose on its own by random chance.
The mousetrap analogy was used because it is so obvious that a
mousetrap cannot work if even one of its parts is missing. This
principle of irreducible complexity, when applied to the complexity and
interdependence of even the simplest cell, with its hundreds of genes
and thousands of bits of information, is a scientifically unanswerable
challenge to evolution.
An evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, attempting to refute this
unanswerable challenge to the religion of evolution, came up with what
he called the weasel sentence demonstration, which was a sentence that
read ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. In his example Dawkins created the
weasel sentence, then programmed the computer to select out the letters
to match the predetermined sequence in the sentence. All this in an
effort to prove that life arose in the past by random chance.
Dawkins calls his scenario cumulative selection. His belief is that
over time random chance would cause an organism to accumulate traits
that aim for a particular outcome. The question he can not answer is
how, by random chance, an organism would know in advance that a slight
change in a structure would ultimately result in an improvement. How
would half a wing help an animal to fly?, and how would the organism
know in advance what a wing is supposed to look like? In the weasel
sentence example the computer knows in advance what the ultimate goal
is, because it was intelligently designed by Dawkins to look for it.
One main reason evolutionists use silly computer simulations like this,
instead of real evidence, is because the evidence from the real world
is against them.
This whole issue highlights an important, but sometimes misunderstood
concept, the difference between what is unanswered and what is
unanswerable.
An example of an unanswered question is how the stimulation of taste
buds in the tongue results in the sensation of taste. Right now this is
an unanswered question, but it is not, in principle, unanswerable,
further research will probably lead to an understanding of this
phenomenon. The complexity and interdependence of the cell is something
quite different; it is unanswerable.
The parts of a cell are so complex and interdependent that it is
impossible for the individual parts to function or have any benefit
outside of the entire structure and so impossible for them to have
arisen by random chance thru natural selection.
The unanswerable fact of the irreducible complexity of the cell
highlights the willful ignorance and religious nature of evolution. If
evolutionists were really looking for scientific explanations, they
would see the impossibility of undirected, random chance bringing about
the complexity we see in the natural worldaround us and would look for
other explanations.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science
founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief
in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in
special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true
but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." L. Harrison
Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species , J.M.
Dent & Sons Ltd, 1971, p. xi.
In fact the true science of biology is not based on evolutionary story
telling, but on observation and testing. This highlights one important
difference between Creationists and evolutionists,
Creationists understand that the complexity we see in
nature is the result of God's intelligent design of His Creation and
not the result mindless chance.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:3
