Watch Design

Watch Design. Randall Niles resurrects the Classic Argument for an Intelligent Designer.

In 1831, William Paley argued that God's existence could be inferred from the designs seen in biology. He said that if one were to come upon a watch lying on the ground, one would not assume that it was the product of nature. It must have been designed by an intelligent being. Likewise, Paley argued that the designs seen in biology must be the result of an intelligent Designer.

Within a few years, David Hume, and to some extent, Charles Darwin, had successfully invalidated Paleys biological machine analogy because, at that point in time, science was only guessing at what existed at the molecular level. There was no evidence of so-called biological machines -- cells were merely blobs of protoplasm, little black boxes that somehow performed organic functions in an unseen world.

OK, lets revisit that argument today

Over 150 years later, we now have electron-scanning microscopes and x-ray crystallography, miraculous tools that have opened the black box of the cell! In fact, 21st century technology is revealing black boxes within previously discovered black boxes, exposing, as Dr. Michael Behe says, an unanticipated Lilliputian world of enormous complexity thats pushed modern, naturalistic science to a breaking point.

Remarkably, weve now established that each microscopic cell is not only as well-designed as Paleys watch, but more functionally complex than the space shuttle!

Visit http://www.AllAboutTheJourney.org/evidence-for-intelligent-design.htm to further explore how William Paley's classic comparison of an organic cell to watch design is more applicable than ever.

Also, go to http://www.RandallNiles.com/videos.htm to watch more videos about how watch design and cell design intersect!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Watch Design Argument
• William Paley
• David Hume
• Organic Cell
• Cell Structure
• Cell Function
• Intelligent Designer
• Randall Niles

[reflect7]

OK Shreken -- How'd you get your first internal combustion engine for your tremendously superior (and highly logical) analogy? By the way, even if considered "simple" reproductive systems, evolutionary theory needs two creatures with fully-functional versions right from the start.

[reflect7]

All mutations which have been observed have

resulted in the loss of information from a genome, right? However, for evolution to

work, we need hundreds of millions of examples of mutations which result

in the increase of information on a genome, right? As mutations accumulate over time, creatures actually move in the opposite direction, and decrease in complexity.

[Sweetkittenpie]

"All mutations which have been observed have

resulted in the loss of information from a genome, right?"

Wrong, profoundly wrong.

[reflect7]

Examples please -- Thanks.

[pandstar]

Watches are not alive. They do not replicate themselves, do not have mutations and don't survive or die due to environmental stress.

This is what's known as a false analogy.

The evidence for evolution keeps piling up and people are still conjuring up Paley!?

Please read a real science book!

[reflect7]

Great point -- How did rocks become alive? Where did that reproductive system come from? I need a fully-functional reproductive system in the first set of creatures to pass along the first mutations, right?

[somecomputergeek]

Of course, human beings weren't created in a factory by craftsmen. We are biological systems, and were born from other biological systems. We call them our parents. Since biological systems are born, reproduce, and die, they're not very analogous to something like a watch.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@5tonyvvvv There is zero evidence of anyone who actually understands organic chemistry being so retarded as to claim that RNA formed by chance, or that there are no processes which can affected the chirality of amino acids.

Ignoring the processes that affect handedness still isn't an argument.

[groovyengineer]

The first watch was a stick protruding from the ground in sunlight, why dont you use that insted of your wrist watch?

[tylerjac69]

@reflect7

self-replicating RNA molecules that were fairly stable would be sufficient to begin with.

-why filter comments? Whether or not your intentions are pure in doing so, it only looks suspicious to anyone posting.

[BaltoMovie]

@reflect7 Sickle cell disease

[5tonyvvvv]

@pandstar All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..moron atheists !!

[turkeypantz]

@entyrion on the FACE of the Earth? FACE? WATCH-FACE. That was a horrible pun.

[psygate]

@reflect7 You're logic here is flawed. Evolution does NOT need two fully functional oganisms to work. Bacteria do not reproduce through sexual interaction, but through dividing their cells. Evolution also works without any living organism at all. Evolution is a principle that can be applied to about anything in the universe.

[entyrion]

2 major fallacies with this guy's watch-human analogy:

1. Watches are not living organisms; they do not reproduce, they are not subject to natural selection.

2. This man's watch has the "designer's" name literally stamped on the backplate. It is an observable fact that ALL watches are designed. We do not presume that his watch is designed because of its apparent complexity, we presume his watch is designed because it is an observable fact that every watch on the face of the earth is designed.

[AwakeAgainstAllOdds]

Watches do not reproduce with variation

Watches do not compete over scarce resources

The components of a watch have never been observed to demonstrate natural affinities for each other.

A watch is in no way analogous to an organism.

[HealthySkeptic]

I agree. There's no doubt the watch was created by designers (and automation specialists?). And the reason is obviously because the watch is not a living being and therefore did not have a mother and father watch capable of passing down their genetic material, and therefore did not have millions of other ancestors before them also passing down their own genetic material. Hmmm... just wondering... who created the smallpox virus, and, more importantly, why?