Posts
The philosopher William Paley (July 1743 – 25 May 1805) is most famous for what is known as the Watchmaker Analogy which is a teleologial argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. He formulated this argument in 1802 and in 1838 Charles Darwin had Paley in mind when he formulated a counter-argument known as Natural Selection.
The Watchmaker Analogy can be simplified into two parts:
1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.
Richard Dawkins also wrote a book attempting to refute this analogy titled The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins described Paley's argument "as mistaken as it is elegant". Dawkins also gives an explanation for complex artifacts, but one where a designer is not necessary. He demonstrated through computer simulation that "highly complex" systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated yet naturally selected steps, rather than an intelligent designer. He therefore concludes, evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.
Though both Darwin and Dawkins present a plausible refutation of Paley's argument, the truth of the matter is that there is no evidence to back up their claim. Their argument is only convincing to those who follow the presupposition that things evolved gradually over a long period of time, thus making the argument circular by nature.
But what if there was a watch so complex that the Watchmaker Analogy takes on a whole new meaning? That it presents a step in its design where natural randomness in its make-up becomes virtually impossible? Maybe something like the tourbillon.
William Paley published Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature in 1802. In 1801, Abraham Louis Breguet, called the “watchmaker of kings and the king of watchmakers,” patented a watch mechanism called the Tourbillon, which is French for “whirlwind,” revolutionizing watchmaking. The tourbillon has approximately 100 parts, and weighs only 0.296 grams.
Among the many Breguet clients have been folks such as Marie Antoinette, Napoleon Bonaparte, Sir Winston Churchill, and George Washington.
William Paley considered the conclusion of Design appropriate if one had stumbled upon a watch in the woods and wondered of its origin:
"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."
And of course he was right. Microbiology has confirmed that the cell is much, much more complicated than even the tourbillon, and on a much smaller, nano-technological scale. A modern formulation of the argument, given what we know of microbiology and the complexity of the cell, could be:
"But suppose I had found a cell upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the cell happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the cell might have always been there."
Keep in mind also that Charles Darwin considered the cell to be nothing but a glob of jelly, as Michael Behe has pointed out and beautifully refuted in his book Darwin's Black Box.
Paley also claimed that something might come to be known about the intentionality of the Watchmaker by his design:
"...when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker — that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use."
Those familiar with the complexity of watches will not believe that they can be brought about blindly and randomly, as, hopefully, this video illustrates. This watch has a tourbillon escapement. Who would like to venture the inference that this watch was constructed through blind randomn processes?
The Watchmaker Analogy can be simplified into two parts:
1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.
Richard Dawkins also wrote a book attempting to refute this analogy titled The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins described Paley's argument "as mistaken as it is elegant". Dawkins also gives an explanation for complex artifacts, but one where a designer is not necessary. He demonstrated through computer simulation that "highly complex" systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated yet naturally selected steps, rather than an intelligent designer. He therefore concludes, evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.
Though both Darwin and Dawkins present a plausible refutation of Paley's argument, the truth of the matter is that there is no evidence to back up their claim. Their argument is only convincing to those who follow the presupposition that things evolved gradually over a long period of time, thus making the argument circular by nature.
But what if there was a watch so complex that the Watchmaker Analogy takes on a whole new meaning? That it presents a step in its design where natural randomness in its make-up becomes virtually impossible? Maybe something like the tourbillon.
William Paley published Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature in 1802. In 1801, Abraham Louis Breguet, called the “watchmaker of kings and the king of watchmakers,” patented a watch mechanism called the Tourbillon, which is French for “whirlwind,” revolutionizing watchmaking. The tourbillon has approximately 100 parts, and weighs only 0.296 grams.
Among the many Breguet clients have been folks such as Marie Antoinette, Napoleon Bonaparte, Sir Winston Churchill, and George Washington.
William Paley considered the conclusion of Design appropriate if one had stumbled upon a watch in the woods and wondered of its origin:
"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."
And of course he was right. Microbiology has confirmed that the cell is much, much more complicated than even the tourbillon, and on a much smaller, nano-technological scale. A modern formulation of the argument, given what we know of microbiology and the complexity of the cell, could be:
"But suppose I had found a cell upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the cell happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the cell might have always been there."
Keep in mind also that Charles Darwin considered the cell to be nothing but a glob of jelly, as Michael Behe has pointed out and beautifully refuted in his book Darwin's Black Box.
Paley also claimed that something might come to be known about the intentionality of the Watchmaker by his design:
"...when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker — that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use."
Those familiar with the complexity of watches will not believe that they can be brought about blindly and randomly, as, hopefully, this video illustrates. This watch has a tourbillon escapement. Who would like to venture the inference that this watch was constructed through blind randomn processes?
0 comments:
Post a Comment