“Imagine that you’re visiting an art exhibition.
You see a lot of pictures belonging to different times, and there is an attendant – an attendant
that introduces the pictures to the visitors.
He gives information about the pictures to the visitors.
He talks about how the pictures have been made, which period they belong to, about the
duration of the making process, which materials and colours have been used, but he doesn’t
talk about which artists they belong to.”
So, those of you who’ve debated a creationist or two likely know exactly where
this Muslim is going.
In fact, you probably figured it out within the first seven words…
(“Imagine that you’re visiting an art exhibition”).
Yep, it’s William Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy (“Yay!”).
Wait… hang on a sec-- that’s a sexy looking card, isn’t it?
If fact, do you know what?
I recon it should be part of a card game in which players earn points by debunking arguments
just like it.
That would be awesome, wouldn’t it?
Especially if, say, the Kickstarter was to be released in two weeks time, huh?
Okay… back to business.
Stated simply, the Watchmaker Analogy is a teleological argument for the existence of
god which asserts, by way of analogy, that design implies a designer – or more accurately,
that COMPLEXITY requires a designer; proponents assert that just as a watch implies a watchmaker,
and a painting (or picture?
“picture”) requires a painter (or illustrator?), life must require, so they insist, a lifemaker
(“By explaining how Allah created all these things you do not cut of the fact that there
is a creator”).
It’s was once, in my opinion, the greatest argument for a god.
In fact, it convinced me of deism until the age of nine, but then I discovered evolution
by natural selection, which absolutely annihilates the argument – and I’ll explain exactly
why in just a moment.
This is A Painting Proves Allah Exists – Debunked.
“And then you suddenly ask: excuse me, to which artist do these pictures belong to?
And the answer is surprising: sir, there is no artist for these pictures.
I gave you some information about how they were made, which period they belong to…
why are you asking?
Why are you looking for an artist?
You already know how it’s made.
Now, what would be your reaction?
Could anyone make you believe that what the attendant says is right?
Of course not!”
[…] “By explaining how Allah created all these things you don’t cut of the fact that
there is a creator.
We believe in a creator that is behind the curtains, and who offers these blessing by
using all these reasons.”
Now those of you who’ve well-acquainted with my channel will likely know that I’ve
already thoroughly debunked the Watchmaker Analogy in a previous video, but truth be
told, it’s pretty dated now…
I mean, look at how young… and awkwardly close to the camera I was…
I mean seriously, I was so damn close!
And white!
(“That’s racist!).
But if creationists are going to keep using the same old arguments, all be them
slightly altered, then we, the rational, are going to keep using the same rebuttals, all
be them, appropriately altered!
However, with that said, for the purpose of context it’s worth first succinctly recapping
the argument’s history.
It was first fully-fledged in 1802 by William Paley, in his book titled Natural Theology,
who essentially puts it as follows: If you were to find a pocket watch lying upon the
ground, you would NOT assume that it was produced by natures’ randomness (“A beautiful watch
began ticking one day, formed all by itself in a wonderful way…
ridiculous story, you say with a grin.
Impossible!
Laughable!
Surely a sin!”).
Indeed, you would assume, due to its COMPLEXITY, it must’ve had a creator who consciously
and deliberately willed it into existence.
Likewise, Paley argued, because life is so incredible complex, we can infer that there
must be a life-creator… and we ought to call this creator, god.
It was, and to my great annoyance still remains, an incredibly popular argument: “I just
want to give you guys something to think about here […] let’s suppose you were walking
down a path (like a creek), you… you, there’s something-- and you come across a watch--"
“Time out!”
And what’s more, since Paley’s time theists and deists have conjured countless additional
versions of the argument, in which simply substitute Paley’s watch with something
more culturally relatable, such as, say, literature: “Okay, I want you to imagine we walk a little
further down the beach, and you see in the sand it says ‘John loves Marry’, and you
say ‘hey Joe, how did that-- how did that get into the sand?’
And I say ‘oh, yeah, it was the waves again – the waves did that’… are you going
to believe me?
You’re not, are you?
Because you know that natural cannot create something so finely tuned in such a small
area, can it?”
“Why is it – why is our universe so finely tuned if we just came from accident?
If we just came from nature’s randomness?”
And, of course, today’s most popular version: paintings: “Imagine you’re standing looking
in awe at what you think is the most beautiful painting ever painted.
[…] Imagine now, that you’re back now looking at that incredible painting, and there’s
a man beside you raving about it just as much as you did, but when he finds out that the
person next to him is the actual painter he spits on him – he cusses him out, and for
some unknown reason adamantly denies that the painting even had a painter!
Then he says the unthinkable: he says it happened by accident!”
But that’s enough examples, I hear you crying.
“Enough is enough!
I have had it with these mother-fucking [watchmaker analogies] on this motherfucking [planet!]”
“Everyone strap in – we’re about to open some fucking [fallacies]!”
The first reason the Watchmaker Analogy is flawed is because it commits a False Analogy
Fallacy; it erroneously asserts that because two things share one quality in common (that
being, in this case, complexity), they therefore must share another quality in common (that
being, in this case, a creator), but this simply cannot be logically concluded.
It’s as fallacious, for example, as asserting that because paintings and humans share the
quality of complexity, they must also share the quality of consciousness…
The point being, of course, is that just because two objects share one thing in common (such
as complexity), that doesn’t necessarily not mean that they share another (such as
a creator).
Now it’s important to note that this objection ALONE defeats the argument.
Like, really, it’s game over.
That is, unless the proponent can prove that complexity can ONLY come from a conscious
creator… and this leads us perfectly to the second fallacy that the argument commits:
a False Cause.
It does this, as just indicated, by attributing a SOLE cause and effect relationship between
complexity and consciousness, despite the fact that such a relationship has NOT been
proven to exist.
Sure, we can infer that watches are the product of watchmakers, and paintings are the product
of painters, but the reason we can do this actually has NOTHING to do with complexity
– rather, it’s because we have observed literally millions of these items being produced
by conscious entities, and not one, ever, being produced in any other way.
However, and conversely, we have observed literally millions of complex organisms, but
have not once, ever, seen one being produced by a conscious entity.
We do, however, have overwhelming evidence that such complexity – such seemingly deliberate
design – can and has been produced by the unconscious force that is evolution by natural
selection… and here lies the third flaw of the Watchmaker Analogy; it completely and
utterly ignores evolution by natural selection.
“But actually they don’t know that we Muslims accept science already.”
No – you don’t; you accept science that doesn’t conflict with your iron-age worldview,
and you misrepresent and ignore science that does… such as evolution!
Now, I’ve created numerous videos on this topic, each saturated with evidence and resources,
and so for this video I’ll keep it brief by saying that we know, FOR A FACT, that the
unconscious process that is natural selection, has given rise to countless complex and purposed
organisms, which, admittedly, without an understanding of natural selection, do radiate the illusion
of conscious design.
So there, in my opinion, are the three most damning flaws of the Watchmaker Analogy.
However, those who employ the argument VERY frequently commit additional fallacies, and
I think it’s worth noting the most prominent, and so, I’m going to do just that.
The first I’d like to illuminate, and one that proponents (at least in my experience)
seriously struggle to understand, is that of Special Pleading.
If, as they insist, complexity requires a creator, then by applying the argument’s
logic to its own conclusion we can insist that the creator (with all his or her complexity),
must also have a creator… and so on and so forth!
Hence, the argument is utterly self-defeating – even if correct, all it would establish
is turtles all the way down.
That is, unless the advocate creates an exception to their logic without justification… which,
of course, is exactly what they do; “By definition, god is the uncreated creator of
the universe!”
“Right.”
“And so the question 'who created god' is actually an illogical question.”
Yeah, well, I define the universe as a “The uncreated universe”… see the problem?
A second fallacy that proponents VERY frequently commit is a Black and White Fallacy.
They tend to insist that either their god created life / the universe / whatever, or
that pure random chance did: “A beautiful watch began ticking one day, formed all by
itself in a wonderful way.”
“Why is our universe so finely tuned if we just came from accident?
If we just came from nature’s randomness?”
“Then he says the unthinkable: he says it happened by accident!”
But god and random chance are not the only options… are they Darwin?
*smile* And even if evolution wasn’t established – even if it wasn’t the bedrock of biology
– the proponents of the Watchmaker Analogy would STILL have the Burden of Proof to substantiate
their Black and White assertion… which, of course, they don’t even attempt to do.
The third most prominent fallacy additionally committed by those who wield the Watchmaker
Analogy is a Non-Sequitur.
More often than not, they act as if the argument establishes monotheism (a single-god hypothesis),
and many even act as if it establishes their VERY specific god, but the truth is that even
if the argument was valid, it wouldn’t even substantiate monotheism.
Think about it – if you saw a shoe lying on the ground, would you assume that it was
created by a painter?
No, you wouldn’t – you’d assume it was created by a shoemaker (or, funny enough,
by an unconscious machine – but that’s a whole other avenue).
Hence, if the argument was a valid, it would follow that humans have a human-maker, rabbits
have a rabbit-maker, mountains have a mountain-maker, suns have a sun-maker, and so on… implying
that there must be many gods, not just one (“Allah. Allah. Allah”).
Now there are many more fallacies that advocates of this argument tend to commit, and most
of which are covered in my original video, but as for this one, I’m ready to wrap up.
And so, to recap, the Watchmaker Analogy is flawed because it commits a False Analogy
Fallacy, a False Cause Fallacy, and it completely ignores the bedrock of science that is evolution
by natural selection; and proponents of the Watchmaker Analogy frequently additionally
commit a Special Pleading Fallacy, a Black and White Fallacy, and a Non-Sequitur.
As always, I’m Stephen Woodford, or Rationality Rules, and thank you kindly for the view,
and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve supported
the channel via merchandise and PayPal.
If you’re interested in the aforementioned Debunked card game (which I hope you are),
know that should things go according to plan, the Kickstarter will be released around the
15th of February.
Anyhow, until next time my fellow apes, until next time.