Three Blind Mice
Next the video-maker runs through three examples used by Irreducible Complexity advocates;
(1) The Eye,
(2) The bombadier Beetle,
(3) The Mouse-Trap example of Michael Behe.
We skip the bombadier Beetle example, because frankly, its nowhere near
the required complexity in the first place, to qualify as an example.
In this the narrator is probably right, not about its evolution, which begs the question, but that its a FAIL as an example of Irreducible Complexity.
The Mouse-trap example is more interesting, but as far as we and the
narrator are concerned, its not a living creature, and probably not an
example of Irreducible Complexity either.
Nonetheless, without a perfect or complete scientific methodology, we
can still be 99% sure that the mouse-trap was not a natural formation,
but the result of an Intelligent Designer. There is little point in
arguing about this.
We know the mouse-trap is a Designed Object for a number reasons, all of
which can be scientifically investigated, analyzed, and expressed,
provided we want to bother to put in the time.
Its not only 'complexity' that results in a good case for Intelligent Design, but a number of factors, including circumstantial evidence. For instance:
(1) The mouse-trap is made of iron wire, something we can already identify as man-made.
(2) It has a mechanical spring, the material, size and shape of which
never occurs in the natural world, outside of man's activity.
(3) It has a logo painted on it, identifying the company and where it was made.
This brings up the problem of the huge hole in the video's narrative.
The narrator makes no proper distinction between Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity. He simply lumps everthing together under "Creationism", and labels that a 'religious ideology'.
He has no excuse, for later in the video he is quite careful about the definitions and philosophical implications of Irreducible Complexity.
Since he doesn't give Intelligent Design anywhere near the same care and attention, its obvious he's not being scientific, or even thorough:
He's being a propagandist.
Yet to any real scientist, the two ideas are quite clearly distinct,
and this distinction is crucial to fields such as cryptology and military surveillance.
The narrator makes an important point following the discussion of the mouse-trap here:
Thus the narrator is quite capable of making the crucially important distinction between LIVING things and NON-Living things.
But what is the real significance of this?
The whole original inquiry is based on this critical observation:
Living Things Don't follow the 'natural laws'
that utterly fix and determine the behavior of dead things.
(1) Living things make copies of themselves. Dead things don't.
(2) Living things evolve complex information systems and machinery. Dead things DON'T.
(3) Living things operate AGAINST both thermodynamic and Informational Laws of Entropy. Dead things don't!
Its futile to insist that Living things follow the same physical and
chemical laws as dead things, which is an underlying 'text' of atheistic
when the whole point of real science is to investigate why they DON'T.
To miss this is to misdirect what science actually is, and what the real business of scientific investigation should be.