Basketeers: About the Watch-maker Theory?

Question

The Watch-maker theory goes something like this:

You are walking in the desert, and come across a watch. Do you assume the watch just naturally originated there through natural processes, or do you assume it was made by a watch-maker?

This is the Intelligent Design advocate's way of saying that because the parts and functions of a watch are carefully crafted to do what it does, it requires a designer to make it that way.

Thus, because we are complex, we too must require a Designer.

You following this logic?

(o.O)

But I must ask, has anyone examined the DNA of a watch?
Has anyone seen two watches doing it in the bushes?

Without DNA and reproductive sex, there is very little evolution occurring.

Actually, there is no evolution occurring without DNA and reproductive sex.

A watch has about as much in common with us as granite.

Do you have any hoary chestnuts like this one you'd like to throw into the Tea Party's Lake of Fire?

my bad: dna and reproductive sex are not required for evolution. They simply speed it up.

Answer 1

I like the bit where they say "it's so complex I can't understand how it came about except from god"

This is a good laugh for two reasons:-
1. They're being incredibly modest - There's a whole load of other things they don't understand either. The argument of personal incredulity is just evidence of ignorance.
2. The argument of irreducible complexity is a total humbug put out by pseudo scientists with no concept of how evolution works. Every time they see a stone arch they must think it's made by god because every stone relies on every other stone to stay in place.

UPDATE
"we don't see wind, we see it's effects" = "we don't see evolution we see it's effects" [see below]

Answer 2

The logic of the wachmaker argument is flawed.

I liked very much the site tawaen posted. I just have one thing to point out. The author of that site points out that even the evolutiove process evolves, it mention the development of sexual reproduction, so far so good. Then it he points that these evolutive process somehow proves there is no God (now, that flawed logic makes the watchmaker argument seem like the theory of relativity).

Oh, and there is no evolutionary explanation of how sexual reproduction was developed. On the long therm, sexual reproduction is far better than assexual reprodution, still on the short therm assexual reproduction produces more individuals, much faster (not to mention that in sexual reproduction there is a 50% loss of each individuals genes). And the thing is, evolution only sees the short therm answer. If it is not good in THIS generation than it dies.
It, of course, dosen't prooves there is no evolution. And it reminds me of a "god of gaps" more than i'd like, still it proves that the site's argument against the existence of God is completly invalid.

Oh, before i hear some equally illogical argument of : "Your criticising evolution therefore you've never been to school". My Biology data for this answer was taken from Ridley's book "Evolution" (2005).

I just hat to point out all that, because other than that the little story is great and i really liked it : http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker

Thats it...
Did i even answer the question? oh yeah i did in the first line:"The logic of the wach maker argument is flawed"

Paz de Cristo

Answer 3

William Paley, Natural Theology, 1802.
This is where the watchmaker argument started.
Natural theology was an attempt to bring revealed theology into the field of reason instead of the field of church taught supernatural revelation.
Actuality it opened the door to Deism and the resurgence of atheism.
Thanks to Reverend William Paley for creating the best arguments for atheism without even being aware of it.
----------------------------
"The absence of proof is not a proof of absence."
This is often thrown out as a defence against the request for any evidence that God exists. The simplest and clearest refutation of this is Russel's Teapot. If you are having a *Tea Party* a Teapot should be somewhere handy.
Freedom *of* Religion includes "Freedom _From_ Religion!"

Answer 4

Don't you just hate it when you go to the park with your kids. You just want to have a nice relaxing day to play and there are those darn horny watches getting it on in the bushes! I don't know how many times I've had to throw a bucket of cold water on them. of course you also have to make sure their water resistant first. This is really awkward trying to read their bellies while their having their way with each other. I must admit though, after seeing them I went straight home with my hubby to do it watch style! VERY EXCITING.

Answer 5

"Intelligent Design" (to the exclusion of the consideration that an omnipotent God could easily have created the evolutionary process right along with everything else) advocates are some of the DUMBEST dolts on earth. (More strong evidence that 13% of the population has IQs under 75.)

To "primoa1970" -- I'm a Christian too, and like MOST Christians, I have no desire to claim that God was INCAPABLE of having created the very *obvious* evolutionary process. MY God has unlimited capabilities. Too bad about yours.

Answer 6

The watchmaker analogy falls flat on two counts:
a) what made the watchmaker?
b) watches don't reproduce to create small, slightly different watches that when grown also reproduce.

I like the argument from complexity and argument from personal incredulity, it is like saying "I'm too ignorant to understand this, it must be god".

Answer 7

There's a good story about this on http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker

Basically, there is no Watchmaker. It takes dozens of people to build a watch. :D

Answer 8

Ahh, Hoary chestnut-

We don't see wind- we just see it's affects- so it's the same as god; we don't see him, but we can see his effects.


Yah. Ok. Shall we have another "whatever" day?

Answer 9

It would be the same as finding a Bible in the desert, I would know a man fabricated it.

Answer 10

The belief that we became the way we are by pure chance is more ridiculous.