isn't the analogy of a watchmaker proof that nature is without any particular order? consider the story for a moment. the story often starts out that you're walking either through the forest or on the beach or some other natural location. when out of nowhere you spot a watch on the ground. therefore creationists theorize that the watch must have a designer. and thus it's safe to assume that some intelligent form of life created the watch. this is what puzzles me. why is the analogy always of finding a watch in the wild? why not finding a watch in a watch store?
2007-05-14 06:43:59 · 8 answers · asked by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Deof Movestofca, check this out on your little eye "theory"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4
2007-05-14 07:08:01 · update #1
True. By placing the watch in a natural setting, they admit that nature does not display design.
There is also everything else wrong with the analogy.
2007-05-14 06:47:16 · answer #1 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Remember that when this old argument first came up, watches were a crowning achievement of technology - an icon.
The whole point about placing it in a natural setting was to emphasise its being out-of-place.
As we now know, there IS a watchmaker - but it's a process, not a being. It's a characteristic of that process that it produces the illusion of design for purpose.
CD
2007-05-14 13:51:56 · answer #2 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe because there is no nature store.?
Besides, if it were in a store you could ask the salesman where it came from. Sure, he might tell you god made that watch and you will live forever if you buy it. He might even throw in a little snake oil to sweeten the deal, but I never trust those guys.
2007-05-14 13:48:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
One of the flimsiest straw man arguments.
They never ask who made the watch maker and who made the being who made the watch maker and on and on
They like to think it's a logical argument, when in reality, it's the beginning of a logical argument. They stop at the first step - for some reason
2007-05-14 13:54:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because everyone knows that the watch's natural habitat is in the wild.....either strolling through the forest or basking in the sun on the beach(they're cold blooded)! They're hunted, killed, domesticated & then their pelts are sold in stores. Do i have to explain EVERYTHING?
2007-05-14 13:48:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's called "contrast" and, as such, isn't an important detail. Your quibble still doesn't deal with the complexity of a system, whether it be a watch or, for example, a retina, that would appear to need a designer.
2007-05-14 14:02:58 · answer #6 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
More importantly, if watches evolved from sundials, why do we still have sundials?
2007-05-14 13:52:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
you're right, a bananna makes much more sense!
2007-05-14 13:51:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋