Evolutionary Circular Reasoning on Carnivorous Plants

One reason that Darwinian thinking has so many people hogtied is because the non-explanation of "it evolved" is used so freely. Add to this the phrase "scientists say", and too many people will accept such a remark without question.

Good science presentations are often spoiled by homage to Darwin. Here are two carnivorous plants that should be studied for what they are.
Venus flytrap image credit: CSIRO / Malcolm Paterson (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
For me, good documentaries on living things are spoiled with assertions of "it evolved", as if homage to the Bearded Buddha somehow provides scientific validation. I'm sure some of you have felt the same way. Why not simply describe what is observed without delving into what is assumed about the subject's history?

We have two examples in the article linked below. Folks riding for the Darwin brand commit circular reasoning and other bad logic by assuming evolution to prove evolution. In fact, two carnivorous plants defy evolution. Instead, they show specified complexity that could not have arisen by evolutionary processes, and display the Creator's handiwork!
Two plants that baffled Darwin are best admired for their design than for their evolution.

Most people have seen the hinged snap-shut cages of the Venus flytrap. Some know that the insides of the leaves have three trigger hairs each, which must be touched twice in succession at a minimum interval of time for the trap to work. There’s another carnivorous plant called the waterwheel plant that also fascinated Darwin. He asked how they could have evolved, but isn’t it more scientific to just observe and describe these wonders of nature, and understand the requirements for their success?
To finish reading, click on "Carnivorous Plants Show Attention to Detail". You may also find "Venus Flytrap — Still Baffling After All These Years" and "Waterwheel Plant Traps Evolutionists" to be of interest.