The Watchmaker Argument

[croniun]

I know this forum's been there and done that but, whatever.

I'm going back and forth with a friend of mine...and believe it or not he's on the theist's side of the argument. One of the objections to the argument that I presented to him was that when the person on the beach, the forest, whatever, picks up the watch and determines that it must have a designer because of its intricate complexity with a purpose (telling time), he's coming to that conclusion by contrasting the order of the watch against the disorder of the watch's surroundings.

And if the watch's surroundings (the world) are disordered, then that would render the watchmaker argument useless...seeing as the whole point of the watchmaker argument is that the world, having order, must have a designer for the same reason that the watch has a designer.

Now replace the watch with the world and the watch's surroundings with the universe surrounding our planet. We contrast our world's order (the planet's placement in order to support life, etc.) against the disorder of the universe.

My friend's response is that the disorder of the rest of the universe would not render the watchmaker argument useless because having that disorder of the universe to contrast against our world is what allows us to determine that our world is in fact ordered...thus providing a reason for God to create the "disorder" that surrounds us.

So how would you respond to my friend? And if you have any other objections to the watchmaker argument, feel free to explain.

[guitrguy]

The watchmaker argument is a fine example of logical fallacy. Complexity doesn't always correlate to an intelligent designer. When trying to assert and intelligent designer they rely upon it being proved false for a basis.

[Independent_CA]

We don't really know the order of the universe fully yet. It's more or less impossible for us to tell right now if there are other earth-like planets in other solar systems.

[thedeadwalk!]

What exactly is the watch supposed to represent?

[guitrguy]

the complexities of the universe. but It doesn't work, because a watch is man made, while the universe is not.

[PerpetualBurn]

Evolution.

Yes it's scientifically ground.

No it's not just a theory.

No watches aren't equatable to cells.

I think this thread is done now.

[Permanent Solution]

I'd be interested in knowing how our world is any more ordered than any other world.

[thedeadwalk!]

the complexities of the universe. but It doesn't work, because a watch is man made, while the universe is not.
Putting aside the man-made factor even, it doesn't work. Evolution lays out how complex things evolve based on natural selection.

[croniun]

I'd be interested in knowing how our world is any more ordered than any other world.

That's another issue I'm having with him. Wouldn't order be in the eye of the beholder?

[guitrguy]

Putting aside the man-made factor even, it doesn't work. Evolution lays out how complex things evolve based on natural selection.

yeah that too. :)

[Surtr]

So what exactly is the arguement we're going by. Because there's a few different versions.

And I don't even know why I'm in this discussion because my logic is **** trying to figure it out, I feel better off just knowing thats how it goes and as long as it keeps going I'm going to try to better my life with the time I'd waste questioning.

[Akira]

Find me a scientific example of a watch even partially creating itself and I'll pretend the watchmaker argument is less asinine than St. Anselm's crap.

[spitfirejunky]

Order is not testable or quantifiable.

[TheDarkHorse]

i've never heard of the watch argument in terms of complexity, or contrasted with disorder. I just heard that if the watch exists, there exists a creator.

[spitfirejunky]

Well, you shouldn't have to go that far to address that question.

Replace "watch" with "rock" and you can ask all the same questions.

[Mr. Ron]

Evolution.

Yes it's scientifically ground.

No it's not just a theory.

No watches aren't equatable to cells.

I think this thread is done now.

^^^^


also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=related

[guitrguy]

I've never heard of the watch argument in terms of complexity, or contrasted with disorder. I just heard that if the watch exists, it implies a watchmaker. In addition, all things in existence are evidence of their creator.Really? because there is no direct connection to an intelligent creator. Nice try though.

I think I read this from an Intelligent Design proponent

complexity is understood, but order suggests there's a larger plan.

For someone to say disorder means that they understand how things are to be made.
By the same token you have to know there was an intelligent creator to say that order suggest it. In fact you have to prove order and the connection to an intelligent creator.

[jaredong]

so i was reading up abit, and here's Humes Razor (from Hume). It is this set of questions which challenge the intelligent design argument

1) is it design?
maybe humans and earth was just a happy coincidence. like a billion billion 6 on a dice in a row. Low in probability but when you ponder how long the universe has existed and how big it is, its not that hard to imagine.

2) if it was design, was it external?
even if the world was designed, maybe it wasnt externally designed. Maybe the system has the ability to design itself in the way it is from itself. Like you can build a birds nest but a bird builds its own nest. (ok silly example, im confused bout this one myself)

3) if it was external, was it aliens or god
Even if we agree it was designed, and it was external design, its not necessarily mean its a deity that designed humanity/earth. It could very well be aliens or something else.

4) if it was a god, its not necessarily a Christian god
Even if it was a deity, the argument of intelligent design does not prove it was a Christian God. No real proof for other any other religion laying claim on creating it all.

[guitrguy]

2) if it was design, was it external?
even if the world was designed, maybe it wasnt externally designed. Maybe the system has the ability to design itself in the way it is from itself. Like you can build a birds nest but a bird builds its own nest. (ok silly example, im confused bout this one myself)
The bird nest is a bad analogy, it would have to more along the lines of the the nest creating it self. What Hume was getting at was the idea of infinite regress.

[Det_Nosnip]

Simplify, simplify.

[RockAndRoll]

I know this forum's been there and done that but, whatever.

I'm going back and forth with a friend of mine...and believe it or not he's on the theist's side of the argument. One of the objections to the argument that I presented to him was that when the person on the beach, the forest, whatever, picks up the watch and determines that it must have a designer because of its intricate complexity with a purpose (telling time), he's coming to that conclusion by contrasting the order of the watch against the disorder of the watch's surroundings.

And if the watch's surroundings (the world) are disordered, then that would render the watchmaker argument useless...seeing as the whole point of the watchmaker argument is that the world, having order, must have a designer for the same reason that the watch has a designer.

Now replace the watch with the world and the watch's surroundings with the universe surrounding our planet. We contrast our world's order (the planet's placement in order to support life, etc.) against the disorder of the universe.

My friend's response is that the disorder of the rest of the universe would not render the watchmaker argument useless because having that disorder of the universe to contrast against our world is what allows us to determine that our world is in fact ordered...thus providing a reason for God to create the "disorder" that surrounds us.

So how would you respond to my friend? And if you have any other objections to the watchmaker argument, feel free to explain.


I think you make some really good points.

The problem (well, one of many really, there are plent of ways to attack it) with that argument is that if ordered things are designed (watches, our world) and disordered things are designed (the rest of the universe would also be designed by god). Then what you're left with is that both ordered and disordered things are designed. So the argument is really just reduced to the assumption that everything is designed. It really becomes more of an assertion than any kind of argument.

[gregulus]

So, I typed up this really long, detailed post on how the watchmaker argument is bad on a strictly biological level and I accidentally deleted it. It was probably the only good post I'd had ever made on this board because biology is my strong point.

[TheDarkHorse]

Really? because there is no direct connection to an intelligent creator. Nice try though.

By the same token you have to know there was an intelligent creator to say that order suggest it. In fact you have to prove order and the connection to an intelligent creator.
I only said I heard this version of the argument, mr ignoramus. I don't ever use this.

and besides, you have to "define" order, not "prove" it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Order is not testable or quantifiable.

ΔSuniverse = ΔSsurroundings + ΔS system

[Dr Hooch]

Order is defined scientifically but if you gave a sh!t about science we wouldn't be having this argument

[PerpetualBurn]

All I know is that if order is not quanitifiable I should've shoved those poxy entropy calculations down the teacher's throat.

[Futue te Ipsum]

ΔSuniverse = ΔSsurroundings + ΔS systemDamn, here I was thinking it was just the system.

I've been lied to by a creationist website :O

[TheDarkHorse]

Order is defined scientifically but if you gave a sh!t about science

I will share two truths with you:
1. God and science do not mutually exclude one another
2. you're ignorant for believing in point 1

we wouldn't be having this argument
what "argument?"

I've never heard of the watch argument in terms of complexity, or contrasted with disorder. I just heard that if the watch exists....
once again (for the reading impaired) I was just stating what I've heard. Your cheapshots are not only irrelevant, they don't hold water.

[Dr Hooch]

Seriously dude

I know veyr well

god is compatible with science if you blink a bit and twist an eyebrow

creationsim/ID are fundamentally unscientific

[PerpetualBurn]

Science and God are compatible in the sense that science hasn't demonstrably shown there to be no God.

They aren't compatible in the more intellectual sense that to believe in God you would have to be using a line of argument which in no way uses science.

[gregulus]

science is all lies. lies, i tell you.

[VomitStainedCretin]

To determine that a world has order, one would first have to experience a world without order.

[PerpetualBurn]

To determine that a world has order, one would first have to experience a world without order.

Or not.

See entropy.

[Dr Hooch]

science is all lies. lies, i tell you.

liberal freakin' conspiracy

[lunchforthesky]

Order and disorder are just words and are relative terms, they couldn't ever be used to prove God. Things are proven using maths.

Addtionally if God did create the universe in that YEC sense, fat chance I know, then everything is designed and an omnipotent God wouldn't create something that is in disorder as he is perfect and it is exactly as he planned and thus is orderly. So without that comparison the whole thing falls apart. Which is basically your argument to begin with. This argument is logically sound his is not in the least, the end.

And as a lot of people pointed out already evolution is not a scam.

[McP3000]

I don't see how evolutionary theory being true has any affect on whether a God exists or not.
Yes, i know about creation...no im not talking about creation.

[spitfirejunky]

ΔSuniverse = ΔSsurroundings + ΔS system

When did disorder become entropy?

[PerpetualBurn]

When did disorder become entropy?

...Is this a real question?

[spitfirejunky]

...Is this a real question?

Yes, because it has nothing to do with the context in which I used the word order.

And order isn't even an accurate way of describing that phenomenon.

[PerpetualBurn]

There was no discernable context.

And entropy is a measure of disorder.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

saying existence (the world) is complex, or simple, is retarded because that means it's something in comparison to something, but there's nothing to compare it to

[Dr Hooch]

Yes, because it has nothing to do with the context in which I used the word order.

And order isn't even an accurate way of describing that phenomenon.

It's the only useful definition of the word in the context of actually making a point.

[lunchforthesky]

I don't see how evolutionary theory being true has any affect on whether a God exists or not.
Yes, i know about creation...no im not talking about creation.

Because the "Watchmaker" is a classic argument, albeit a poorly thought out one, for creationism. It seeks to make evolution or any other non-deity themed theory for the universes current state seem illogical by using an illogical premise itself. Therein lies your fallacy.

Additionally the thread starter is a creationist so it was relevant on two fronts.

Some theistic evolutionists use the watchmaker argument but usually most theistic evolutionist refrain from attempting to prove God's existence as they either deep down know how silly it is or recognise the function of "faith", which I myself will never understand so I couldn't really explain why they do this.

[ringworm]

Use the argument of that cog theory creationists tried to use

its a bacteria that had a propelling device that they deemed too unique and complex to have evolved, it was quickly and scientifically rebuted
We don't really know the order of the universe fully yet. It's more or less impossible for us to tell right now if there are other earth-like planets in other solar systems.
its more or less impossible to believe that out of kazillions of solar systems in the infinite universe that there arent any earth like planets either :)

[McP3000]

Because the "Watchmaker" is a classic argument, albeit a poorly thought out one, for creationism. It seeks to make evolution or any other non-deity themed theory for the universes current state seem illogical by using an illogical premise itself. Therein lies your fallacy.

Additionally the thread starter is a creationist so it was relevant on two fronts.

Some theistic evolutionists use the watchmaker argument but usually most theistic evolutionist refrain from attempting to prove God's existence as they either deep down know how silly it is or recognise the function of "faith", which I myself will never understand so I couldn't really explain why they do this.
My fallacy? I never said anything about believing in the watchmaker argument.
And being a theistic evolutionist is a lot more rational than you give credit so idk

[gregulus]

Use the argument of that cog theory creationists tried to use

its a bacteria that had a propelling device that they deemed too unique and complex to have evolved, it was quickly and scientifically rebuted

its more or less impossible to believe that out of kazillions of solar systems in the infinite universe that there arent any earth like planets either :)
the flagella motor. in prokaryotes it works a lot like the ATP synthase pump in eukaryotes, only it has a different function (moving the flagella as opposed to respiration). i don't think this is what they rebutted it with, though.

[PerpetualBurn]

And being a theistic evolutionist is a lot more rational than you give credit so idk

It's not really rational though.

[ringworm]

the flagella motor
yeah, thats it, i always forget its name :)
i don't think this is what they rebutted it with, though.
i wasnt sure how relevant it was to this topic, i ran across it one time when that school system up north got creationism/intelligent design thrown out of their curriculum

[lunchforthesky]

My fallacy? I never said anything about believing in the watchmaker argument.

I meant the fallacy of the watmaker argument.


And being a theistic evolutionist is a lot more rational than you give credit so idk

I don't have much to say to theistic evolution. It is irrational strictly speaking but so long as you're not anti science nuts and accept evolution/big bang etc.. then if you want to stick God at the start that's fine.

[spitfirejunky]

There was no discernable context.

And entropy is a measure of disorder.

You couldn't assume that the watchmaker argument deals more with configuration and design, and less with joules per kelvin?

It's the only useful definition of the word in the context of actually making a point.

It still deviates from the thread.

[gregulus]

yeah, thats it, i always forget its name :)

i wasnt sure how relevant it was to this topic, i ran across it one time when that school system up north got creationism/intelligent design thrown out of their curriculum

it's fairly relevent. the proponents of ID are longing to find something of irreducible complexity so they can immediately jump to the conclusion of a designer, like they did with the flagella motor. unfortunately for them, scientists don't jump to such conclusions and further pursued research and found the probable ancestor.

[Dr Hooch]

You couldn't assume that the watchmaker argument deals more with configuration and design, and less with joules per kelvin?

You're making the point that you don't have a point?


You're saying that the formal definition of something isn't applicable, and that the informal definition isn't even defined properly?

[spitfirejunky]

You're making the point that you don't have a point?


You're saying that the formal definition of something isn't applicable, and that the informal definition isn't even defined properly?

What?

[Dr Hooch]

What?

You're saying our definition is inappropriate but refuse to provide a better one?

[spitfirejunky]

You're saying our definition is inappropriate but refuse to provide a better one?

I've already made the assumption that order describes the existence of design, configuration, etc.

Then you guys rebutted using a definition of order that has nothing to do with the topic.

That's like walking into a philosophy symposium and stating that values exist beyond human thought because logic gates in RAM can be used to dictate them.

[Dr Hooch]

That's like walking into a philosophy symposium and stating that values exist beyond human thought because logic gates in RAM can be used to dictate them.

I simply disagree

[croniun]

Additionally the thread starter is a creationist

nope

[Knifeboy]

What are you then?

Have you changed beliefs?

[croniun]

yep

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

god exists
he is all powerful and omnipotent
as much as he needs to be,
he preforms miracles and gives grace and peace
but personally i myself dont believe in him

[lunchforthesky]

nope

Well then you've changed sides.

Good call on that one.

[gregulus]

people who try to discredit evolution using entropy. oof.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

its retarded because the difference is that creationists absolutely believe their stance

while i think evolution is probably correct, i dont really care

[VomitStainedCretin]

its retarded because the difference is that creationists absolutely believe their stance

while i think evolution is probably correct, i dont really careCreationists need to believe else their dogmas seem eroded, as many are Biblical literalists, and they fear to gaze into the abyss of meaninglessness, so must continue to turn their eyes away to falsehood.

People who accept evolution have either compromised their religious dogmas inorder to incorporate this concept or lack such catechisms (I cannot think of anyone who actually considers evolution as a fundamental dogmatic concept central to their belief system.

[hethamulburton]

people who try to discredit evolution using entropy. oof.

:lol:

You wonder where they get their info...