Watch-Maker 202: Challenges

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. (Charles Darwin)

Challenges to Paley's Watchmaker Argument.


The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes.

The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy.

The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who created God?


George H. Smith, in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, points out what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design.




Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.[4] (Charles Darwin)

Q: Can you spot the circular argument in Darwin’s Conclusion:

Clue: What is (or are) the scource(s) of fixed laws? Answer: nature. Conclusion. Nature is what it is because nature is what it is.