The Watchmaker
- Thread starter grayman
- Start date
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
You could begin by pointing out that watches don't tend to reproduce themselves, which makes them a piss-poor analogy for evolution.
bobcarp
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 252
You could ask, "Who designed and created god?". Of course they will respond that God always was, contradicting their own analogy.
TheAntiLuddite
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 108
This is one of the simplest and most logical counterarguments to ridiculous "Watchmaker" appeals. But just for grins, thank your brother and tell him that the oh-so-cute childrens' cartoon* has caused you to finally see the light...
...and you're converting to Zoroastrianism.
Watchmaker appeals work equally well for all deities, much to the dismay of (Un)Intelligent Design proponents, who desire to use it as a tool to shovel Christianity into the classrooms.
* After all, the Scriptures tell us to become like children (i.e. unquestioning and credulous) in order to fully understand God's "truth".
Kochanski
Illuminator
How about this:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Design
Personally, I find any website with the word Truth in its title to be suspect
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Design
Personally, I find any website with the word Truth in its title to be suspect
Easy enough.
1) Watches are high-order complex things requiring high-order complex tools to build. The original single-celled organisms were simple and required no tools at all, merely the correct conditions.
2) (As pointed out) Watches don't replicate - therefore, they cannot evolve.
3) The first cells almost certainly utilized heat and/or sunlight as input for energy; the watch requires a higher-order external source that's (obviously) not available at the time of creation unless an external being is present. This is an subtle misdirection that helps promote the idea that a self-created watch is absurd.
4) The video compares life to a mechanical dead object. Hardly a valid comparision.
Hope this helps!
1) Watches are high-order complex things requiring high-order complex tools to build. The original single-celled organisms were simple and required no tools at all, merely the correct conditions.
2) (As pointed out) Watches don't replicate - therefore, they cannot evolve.
3) The first cells almost certainly utilized heat and/or sunlight as input for energy; the watch requires a higher-order external source that's (obviously) not available at the time of creation unless an external being is present. This is an subtle misdirection that helps promote the idea that a self-created watch is absurd.
4) The video compares life to a mechanical dead object. Hardly a valid comparision.
Hope this helps!
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Seems reasonable, so long as Dawkins doesn't come across as an upper-class "Pommy twat" (whatever the hell that means) to grayman's brother.Search youtube for the Richard Dawkins Blind Watchmaker documentary - covers this question directly and with pictures
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
This from the same website that says, "Scientists still haven't figured out why atoms (small particles that make up all matter) holds together. If atoms followed established scientific laws, then they and all matter would fly apart." And says that since there are so many Bibles, it is more TRUE than all those other "religious" books. Watches don't undergo reproduction, or mutation, or natural selection. This video is one of those "random chance" fallacies.
I feel justified in my conclusion that kids are idiots .
I feel justified in my conclusion that kids are idiots
.Dark Jaguar
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,666
Keep in mind when you point out "watches don't reproduce" that you point out that that basically means the argument of it having come from evolution is ruled out right there. Without pointing out the logic, you may just get a "well duh" look and absolutely no realization as to your point.
But then you might get the
'Well what natural phenomena produced X?'
(where X is the oldest natural phenomena they have mentioned so far)
Answering the "what produced what" question is complicated enough without the added complication of not only a supremely complex supernatural explanation, but also the need for an explanation as to what caused that supernatural "thing" to exist as well - it just adds additional complications where they aren't needed.
So complicated that there aren't any naturalistic reasons apparently. And apparently the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang oddly enough.
Either way it is a difficulty. Either way seems to be turtles all the way down, whether supernaturalistic or naturalistic ones.
Last edited:
Actually tihs is an outdated view. People used to think they were just simple blobs of goo. Now we know even single celled organisms are highly complex molecular machines.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,099
Ah thinks it means that there Dawkins feller don't talk lahk reg'ler folks. Simple people. The salt of the Earth. You know, morons.
KilgoreTrout
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2006
- Messages
- 76
Yes, it's very odd that our current understanding of physics would break down for something that is very difficult to observe.
The question is, with which viewpoint are you able to actually observe the turtles?
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
You've got your work cut out for you. It's a simple, but powerful, message. Not powerful in the sense of logic, but powerful in the sense of persuasiveness.
You could point to all the experimental evidence showing how cells evolved from mixtures of organic chemicals. Hmm...on second thought, that doesn't seem like a great path to take.
Ok. You can't really do that, because we don't have experimental evidence. All we have are mathematical models that demonstrate how it could have happened, with simulation results showing the steps involved. Hmmm...wait. Maybe that's not such a good approach either.
There is something that we do have, so the next suggestion isn't nearly as smart-alecky as the last two. You could try pointing out that the universe is extremely consistent with evolution. The world really looks like it evolved. However, there are a couple of problems with that approach as well. First, we really don't know darned near anything about how the first cells came about, and "The Watchmaker" really focuses on that. The fact that the universe is extremely consistent with evolution could be because it was designed in a particular way.
So, what to do?
You have a problem because the Intelligent Design argument is, as most people here are aware, an argument from ignorance. It says, "We don't know how cells came about, so God must have done it." Immediately, the average JREFer jumps up and down to point out the problem. "Aha! The argument from ignorance is a fallacy!" It's like saying....' (fill in the blank with anything that it's like here. It's like a lot of things. Pick one' "
So, problem solved. You have shown that it's a fallacy. Good. That's done. You've won the argument, right?
Well, of course you haven't. Even if you get to a logical argument, demonstrating the flaw, what you are left with is "We don't know how cells came about, so God might have done it." That's really not where you want to be, either, but that's as far as you are going to get with that line, because, the truth be told, we don't know how cells came about. We can't come up with any explanation that makes sense. Our ignorance is quite real. Surely, it is a fallacy to make any arguments based on that ignorance, but it is just as fallacious to assert that one answer is impossible, based on that ignorance.
To win the argument, you have to get at one of the core assumptions, and show where it's wrong. That's enough for now, so I'll just outline where I would start. One of the assumptions of most people who accept ID is that evolution is Godless and wrong. The explanatory materials you can click on after "The Watchmaker" cite Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box". He is indeed an intelligent design celebrity. He also believes in evolution. It turns out the two aren't incompatible, no matter what you read here, or in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Get them to accept Behe, and the truth is you're three quarters of the way to getting where you want to go.
(More to come.)
Yes, it's very odd that our current understanding of physics would break down for something that is very difficult to observe.
Apparently not just our current understanding of physics, but the actual laws themselves. Remember? According to the Big Bang, nothing was around. Nothing, not even the laws of physics. Then some magic happened, then everything in the universe popped into existence.
Neither. Some of us just admit it.