This page shows the mousetrap is not irreducibly complex:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
That settles it for me. The mousetrap evolved entirely by random mutation and natural selection.
Really? Oddly, I see all the elements of the mouse trap in the first diagram.
Now, let's actually remove one of the components. Let's remove the tension on the wire (this actually removes two components, the trigger and the hammer.)
Guess what? You no longer have a mouse trap. Removing a component causes catastrohpic failure of the system, just like IC predicts.
All this website does is illustrate a different mouse trap design. All the elements are still there.
This is simply another example of someone not getting irreducible complexity. They think the form of the design is the complexity, not realizing it's the functional elements of the design that is the complexity.
From the article you posted:
"The mousetrap illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the intelligent design argument: the fact that one person can't imagine something doesn't mean it is impossible, it may just mean that the person has a limited imagination."
Actually, that is the major flaw in "non-ID" thinking.
And I assume his "reduceable" mousetrap is humor.
From McDonalds own "reduceable mousetrap article:
"Of course, the reduced-complexity mousetraps shown below are intended to point out the logical flaw in the intelligent design argument; they're not intended as an analogy of how evolution works."
In other words, it is an analogy. Analogies are designed to explain a thing more simply, not prove it. All his analogy proves is that he can be creative and clever. His mousetrap has no examples whatsoever in the actual biological world.
When I was in High School back in 1970, a very clever paper was reprinted that proved black is white. It was a hoot and got an A at some university. Of course the logic was flawed, but in a very covert way. I read and reread it and learned a lot about debate from that paper.
The trick is to get the reader/listener to grant you one seemingly insignificant point (which is actually false), and then build your entire foundation for your conclusion from that one point, without exposing it. They don't know what hit them.