The watchmaker analogy

[houseofcantor]

It is because of our scientific understanding of geological and biological processes such as plate tectonics and evolution (among others) that we infer non-design in nature, and it is because we have experiences with creatures that manufacture mechanical (now electrical) devices like watches that we infer that the watch in Paley's argument is designed.

Also, because ID is an insult to any kind of God. Even my Gwynnies would frown on that shit, and she's all gluten free.

[Clueless Morgan]

It is because of our scientific understanding of geological and biological processes such as plate tectonics and evolution (among others) that we infer non-design in nature, and it is because we have experiences with creatures that manufacture mechanical (now electrical) devices like watches that we infer that the watch in Paley's argument is designed.

Also, because ID is an insult to any kind of God. Even my Gwynnies would frown on that shit, and she's all gluten free.

With a steam-cleaned vag, as far as I understand.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there."

"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."

Nice to know some things never change. We still get this sort of nonsense from the fine folks at the Discovery Institute and ICR.

Which is exactly what to expect when preachers try to do what they imagine to be science.

Boru

[houseofcantor]

Also, because ID is an insult to any kind of God. Even my Gwynnies would frown on that shit, and she's all gluten free.

With a steam-cleaned vag, as far as I understand.  

Cognitive dissonance is not absolutely wrong. 

[houseofcantor]

Simplicity is the hallmark of design, not complexity.

The problem with this is that we find examples of simplicity in nature.  Neither complexity nor simplicity point infallibly toward objects that are the product of design.  That's the whole problem.  Nothing specific points unerringly toward things that are designed; regardless of what property you choose as an indicator of design, there will always be exceptions.  That's why the design argument fails, because there is no 'hallmark' of design that points to design and design alone.

Yeah.

The design argument fails, however, because the design is the endgame. None o' that shit is axiomatic. :/

[ApeNotKillApe]

"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9pePpxU58M

[RobbyPants]

Doesn't he notice the watch exactly because it's so out of place? Isn't it the intelligent design of the watch that makes it unnatural?

The biggest problem with the watchmaker argument is that it is lazy induction that nicely matches the patterns that the creationist sees. It takes particular qualities of a watch that exist in the universe, and then assume that other qualities of a watch somehow apply to the universe.

So, basically:

• A watch is complex.
  
• The universe is complex.
  
• A watch is designed.
  
• Therefore, the universe is designed.
  

That looks all well, and good on the surface (especially when it plays right into your world view), but really, what links the properties of "being complex" with "being designed", apart from the creationists a priori assumptions? What if we link other properties of the watch to its property of "being complex"?
So, basically:

• A watch is complex.
  
• The universe is complex.
  
• A watch fits in my pocket.
  
• Therefore, the universe fits in my pocket.
  

It's obvious, unmitigated bullshit. The creationist will say that my second example is absurd because there is no link between those qualities, but they cannot prove a link between the qualities of complexity and design. At all. The best they will do is give you a very long list of other things that are both complex and designed, hoping that the length of the list will trick you into missing that they're still relying on induction and haven't actually proven that link. Just because I can find you a thousand white swans doesn't mean that black swans don't exist.

Unnatural as in not a result of a natural process. Humans are the result of nature, but the human mind is something of an anomaly.

I'm not sure I agree with this definition.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm pretty sure Dawkins dealt with this in his book

[robvalue]

Simplicity is the hallmark of design, not complexity.

The problem with this is that we find examples of simplicity in nature.  Neither complexity nor simplicity point infallibly toward objects that are the product of design.  That's the whole problem.  Nothing specific points unerringly toward things that are designed; regardless of what property you choose as an indicator of design, there will always be exceptions.  That's why the design argument fails, because there is no 'hallmark' of design that points to design and design alone.  Thus for any property you choose, if an object has that property, it isn't necessarily the case that the object was designed.  Thus, for any property that you find the universe displays, it isn't necessarily the case that it points toward the universe being designed.  The lack of a property which indicates design is the main flaw with the design argument.

Good point!

[ignoramus]

I would have thought that invented intangible mathematical and geometrical shapes/patterns/designs are the hallmark of design.
perfect circles, squares, octohedrons, classic diamond cut, also pure colours are almost non existent in nature, etc

Lots of things in nature come close but are not prefect in structure. Like everything in nature, it's purpose is to function, not to be perfect.
Perfection can only be created artificially. eg: designed.