The Complexetic Argument From Design

Today after a long time, I am here to refute the argument from design. Watchmaker analogy is quite popular, some of you cosmologysmall1guys/girls may be familiar with it. However, let me explain the watchmaker analogy. The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the “argument from design,” where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe. The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as: The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, anything complex) necessitates a designer. In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design. In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined. The refutation starts: In order to refute this argument. I must make it clear that I obviously agree that a watch requires a watchmaker. But not because of it’s complexity, but because a watch is a thing that cannot exist without a creator. It is a thing we know. As for a toothbrush, say, it’s not as complex as a watch, but still it can’t pop out from thin air. So, it’s not about complexity, it’s about the thing itself. Let’s see the stone analogy(an analogy made by myself or maybe I made it independent of any knowledge of it before). Just replace the watch by a stone. When seeing a stone in your way, would you think that somebody(a ‘stonemaker’) created the stone and left it in the road? Obviously not. Because you know that a stone is a thing that can simply be present for a series of natural events that have occurred in the past. If you think that stone is something rather too simple, then consider a dead leaf. It’s much more complex than a watch. Would you think that somebody created it and just left it there? If we open the dictionary, the definition of the word ‘Universe’ appears to be ‘all that exists'(forget multiverse, it’s pseudoscience. Get the context). Obviously ‘all that exists’ can’t be created by anything or anybody else. Well, if you didn’t get it, then the statement is: That’s the difference between natural things and artificial ones. For a case we know that they are created, for another we can’t honestly state that they are created. It’s a begging the question fallacy to be simple.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s