One problem with the "watch and the watchmaker" argument is that we haven't simply found a "watch", a fully formed entity that apparently appeared as is, from nowhere. That analogy may have been reasonable a century ago, it isn't today. We have found a detailed fossil record demonstrating that the earth started its existence as a ball of rock holding the chemical requisites for life, but no life. We see a progression from the simplest living forms to gradually more complex ones, occurring over a span of time inconceivable to most humans. We see means by which this could occur without the intervention of a "designer". We are still filling in links of the chain, and the process and the mechanisms are imperfectly understood, but the picture grows clearer every day, and there is little in it to cause us to assume either design or purpose, except for our fervent emotional desire to find them. This, of course, is the Neocon argument: it must be so because I would feel bad if it were not so. Emotionally appealing, but hardly convincing.
If we found a tree that grew watches as fruit, there would be no need to assume a watchmaker. If we see strong indications of a process by which complexity can occur without design, and no evidence of a designer beyond complexity, there is no need to assume a designer. |
