The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted)
Just over 200 years ago, an English clergyman, Christian philosopher and philosopher named William Paley published a book entitled Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, in which he laid out what has now come to be generally known as the watchmaker analogy. In short, he noted that if one were to walk along a beach and discover a pocket watch in the sand, one could deduce — simply by inspecting how well all of its parts worked together — that it was an artifice that had been designed by somebody and not just some random rock. Thus, he went on to argue, we can similarly look at the complexity of the entire natural world and, simply by inspecting how well all of its parts work together, deduce that it, too, is an artifice that had been designed by somebody (namely God, of course).
The thing is, though, that while Paley may have been an accomplished clergyman, Christian philosopher and philosopher, he obviously didn’t know much about pocket watches or how they were constructed.
I have collected antique pocket watches for many years, on the other hand, and actually do know a thing or two about them. And I know just how little tolerance for error there is in any of the many delicate parts that make up a watch. If a single gear tooth is little off, the watch won’t work properly. If a single jewel has a crack in it, the watch won’t work properly. If one of the screws on the escapement isn’t adjusted just right, the watch won’t keep time properly. And so, if I were to find a pocket watch on the beach, I would know that it was designed because (among other reasons*) every single part of that watch would clearly be perfectly suited to the apparent purpose of the watch.
Keeping that in mind, is that what we see when we examine the natural world? Does every part work perfectly together and is every single part clearly suited to the apparent purpose of the world? Nope. Instead we see massive amounts of chaos everywhere we look. Parasitical diseases, organs that fail, genetic deformities, cancers, natural disasters, species going extinct left and right, asteroids impacting planets, stars colliding, etc., etc., etc. I mean, pity the poor babirusa, whose tusks tend to keep growing in an upwards curve until they actually puncture its skull and kill it:
Sure, the whole natural world somehow manages to keep on going, but to the eye of somebody who actually knows a thing or two about watches it is clear that no design whatsoever was involved.
* Other reasons why I would know the watch was designed include:
- The fact that the watch was found in isolation in a situation where it is clearly different from its surroundings (as opposed to nature, which is a unified whole).
- I have seen numerous other examples of watches that have all been designed. I know the processes involved in making a watch, so it’s safe to assume that any watch I discover was made in a similar fashion. The same is not true with items in nature, however. We have never seen anybody make a cell or a bear or a tree and therefore can’t say that the process must be the same as things made outside of nature.
- There is no other way to explain how a watch could come to be. The same used to be true for items in the natural world, but we now have much greater knowledge and can explain how seemingly complex natural items could arise purely by natural processes. And keep in mind that “by natural processes” is not the same thing as “by random chance,” since natural processes can include a great degree or organization and direction, even if not driven by any purposeful intelligence.
Comments
Post a Comment