Design Implies a Designer: The Watchmaker Analogy Extrapolated

William Paley first published his watchmaker analogy in 1802 in his book 'Natural Theology.' He sets forth the idea that the complexity of the universe is akin to the complexity of things that humans create, therefore the unverse and all things in it must have had a creator, a designer. In this essay I will focus on biological complexity to make the case, however the vast complexity and "fine tuning" of the universe itself also supports what is known as Intelligent Design Theory. Intelligent Design claims that the specified complexity we see in life must arise from a mind, from a thinking intelligence, whether that be some transcendental being or another life form or otherwise.

The interesting thing to note before we get started is that Paley lived and died well before we discovered the immensely complex world of microscopy. Neither he nor the greatly famed Charles Darwin, founder of the modern theory of biological evolution, had any idea about single celled organisms, molecular machines, or DNA. They knew nothing of gene sequences or molecules or atoms, etc. because we couldn't see them yet; the microscopes of their time were not sophisticated enough. Perhaps if Darwin had been able to see such complexity at the foundation of life he may have thought twice about his own theories.

What I am attempting here is to extrapolate the analogy to show it's veracity with varied examples and scenarios. It is easy to write off a singular analogy by attacking the specific scenario rather than the higher concept it alludes to, so I want to be sure to deliver the concept in a few different ways so you get what I'm getting at... get it? So here we go...

If you were walking on the beach and you found a watch in the sand and began to postulate on the nature of its existence and placement on the beach, would you be likely to conclude that it was formed by accident, by natural causes like wind and erosion, by the tide moving in and out and waves crashing on the sand? Or would a more reasonable inference to its existence be that it was designed and made with a purpose? Clearly it had to have been thought of first, assembled very carefully and precisely, and finished so that it served the purpose of keeping time. Even if you had all the right pieces shaped perfectly, the probability that it could be assembled correctly by the chance of natural causes is so astronomically low that scientists and mathematicians would consider it impossible. The watch had to be thought up and created. It had to start in the mind.

Now to extend the analogy. Let's say you're taking a stroll on the Moon. You come across a giant skyscraper reaching up into space as far as you can see. It has smooth symmetrical sides, precise angles, windows and doors, and it's rooted in the ground on a massive foundation. You walk up closer and you can see little arranged symbols carved into the edifice, like numbers or letters. How would you suppose it came to be? Orbital and gravitational forces over millenia? Totally random and accidental meteorite impacts? In other words, natural causes? Or might you do better to infer that intelligent beings, humans or perhaps aliens(google "secret space program" for a wild ride!) built it and inscribed it with a purpose? Of course the latter would be more logical and rational.

Now let's take a trip to Mt. Rushmore. You see the distinct and specific faces of old Teddy, TJ, Georgie and Abey, carved by Gutzon Borglum and his son to resemble the former Presidents' likenesses and no one else's. Jutting out of the side of a rocky hill they are unmistakably distinguished from the natural rock formations surrounding them. Natural causes, yeah? Water freezing and thawing, softer minerals washing away with the rain, gravity constantly pulling down, these could form faces in rocks right? Right, but four distinct and detailed images of specific people who lived and died? An impossible accident, even given billions of years.

Last trip--to the science lab! You look down into a microscope prepped with a slide of a living cell. As you look farther down into the cell, past its outer membrane, into the nucleus, you see all the way down to the molecular strands of DNA. DNA... with carefully ordered symbols that contain information, exactly like a code or a language conveys information... much like the symbols on the side of the moonscraper. Then you see a tiny little machine(yes, biologists refer to these things as molecular machines) called RNA comes and unravels a section of DNA, makes a copy of it, and it is carried out of the nucleus to another machine where it is used as assembly instructions to make the building blocks of the cell. It assembles a strand of amino acids in the precise order according to the instructions from the DNA... much like a watchmaker would carefully assemble the pieces of a watch... This strand is then carried by another machine to yet another machine where, according to the ordered assembly, it is folded and twisted and bended and shaped into the protein it was intended to become from the beginning... much like Gutzon Borglum shaped stone to look like the human faces he intended... That protein will now become a small piece of the larger intricacies of the cell. Perhaps it will become a part of the mitochondrial power plant that gives the cell the energy it needs to operate, a solar plant far more efficient than anything we have been able to create. Perhaps it will become part of the waste management system, one that is able to dispose of unwanted materials while preserving those that continue to serve a purpose. Perhaps it will become part of the propulsion system with bushings and bearings and a drive shaft and a U joint and a propellar that functions far better than any motor ever invented. Zooming out you see that one single tiny cell is more complex and efficient than any machine or factory or computer ever made. It could be likened to an entire metropolitan city.

So... do you still think all of this could have come about by the accident of natural processes? Or does it make more sense to infer that it was designed and created with great purpose? This is the basis for the theory of Intelligent Design. It postulates that the specified complexity of life could not have arisen by chance and must have been created by a thinking mind. The theory stops there; it does not attempt to identify the nature of that mind. There is no religion or religious text involved. In fact it uses the very same methods of observation that all historical sciences use, most especially Darwinian Evolution. Invoking an unobservable entity is common across many disciplines, theoretical physics being another example. ID also includes the possibility of panspermia, that an advanced alien life form created us. Of course this still begs the question of where that life originated, but it remains a possibility nonetheless.

All of this comes from the doctors and scientists I have studied who formed The Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. I have relied most heavily on Dr. Steven Meyer and Dr. Michael Behe, both founding members of the institute and publicly loved/hated proponents of the theory. Other notable researchers I have studied are William Dembski and David Berlinski, both senior fellows at the institute. If you are interested in learning more about this please check out their books, publications, lectures, and debates on the good ol' interwebs.

Thank you for reading! Any and all questions and comments are appreciated! Steem on!

@kennyskitchen @wearechange-co @amacthegeneral @triberiseup @burntmd @scottiemac

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
1 Comment
Ecency