Gaping Holes Everywhere!
The Penitent Atheist has an interesting post about the watchmaker argument. For those unfamiliar with the argument, I’ll briefly summarize it.
Imagine finding a wristwatch. Your first thought upon picking up this wondrous timepiece is not, “Gosh, I’m so glad that all of these pieces randomly came together to form a watch!” You know, upon finding something complex like a watch, that it must have had a designer. So the same goes with ecology: seeing nature and how it works together so well, one should infer a designer. Blind forces couldn’t have constructed a watch anymore than random chance could have constructed our planet and built its ecology.
The Penitent Atheist claims that he destroys the argument in his post. But he doesn’t.
Complexity evolves, he says. Everything starts out simple, then gradually evolves complexity. Nature orders herself, building gradual layers of complexity. The good changes are kept through natural selection, while bad changes eventually die off.
Our penitent friend is very correct in his assertions. There is an intelligence behind nature, how she orders herself by selecting appropriate changes to survive and eliminating the rest. With this line of thinking, the watchmaker argument is rather absurd. Design is not necessary–evolution can take care of this, giving the appearance of design.
It is a gaping hole in the watchmaker argument.
However, there is a gaping hole in the Penitent Atheist’s argument, too. Evolution cannot be disputed. It is as much a fact of life as rain. The problem lies with origins–a subject that evolution never purports to explain. Evolution is a fact of life, but it requires life in the first place.
Last I knew, something cannot come from nothing. Sorry, Penitent Atheist–try again.
The watchmaker argument compares life to a watch, and states that before life, existence was like a box containing randomly arranged watch pieces. If, on opening the box, there was an intact, ticking watch, then the box must also contain a watchmaker.
The claim is that ordered complexity can NEVER arise from chaotic simplicity, without the intervention of intelligence.
If you kidnap a watchmaker, you can do this as an experiment: dismantle two watches, place one in the box with the watchmaker, one in an empty box, open some time later and observe.
The emergence argument compares life to a crystal, and states that before life, existence was like a box containing randomly arranged dust motes, perhaps suspended in a liquid. If, on opening the box, there was an intact, sparkling crystal, then no jeweller is implied.
The claim is that ordered complexity will OFTEN arise from chaotic simplicity, without the intervention of intelligence.
If you kidnap a jeweller, you can do this as an experiment: mix two beakers of sugarwater, place one in the box with the jeweller, one in an empty box, open some time later and observe.
In theory, your results will be as follows:
Watch parts + watchmaker => watch + watchmaker.
Watch parts alone => unchanged watch parts.
Sugarwater + jeweller => sugar crystal + jeweller.
Sugarwater alone => sugar crystal.
Interestingly, in practise you may end up with something more like this:
Watch parts + watchmaker => smaller watch parts + annoyed or dead watchmaker.
Watch parts alone => unchanged watch parts.
Sugarwater + jeweller => empty beaker + jeweller.
Sugarwater alone => sugar crystal.
All an intelligence adds to the mix is unpredictability.
[Please note that the above are thought experiments: please do not take them as a recommendation to kidnap and imprison craftsmen]
Cory,
Where I go with the refutation to the watchmaker argument is that a universe in which nature becomes increasingly complex, independently and over time, implies rules within universe that must have been intelligently designed.