Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ex-muslim Ahmed" data-source="post: 7086010" data-attributes="member: 179431">Watchmaker analogy and Blind watchmaker<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy</a>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia                                                                           The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument" target="_blank">argument</a>, is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument" target="_blank">teleological argument</a> for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God" target="_blank">existence of God</a>. By way of an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy" target="_blank">analogy</a>, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology" target="_blank">natural theology</a> and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God" target="_blank">God</a> and for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design" target="_blank">intelligent design</a> of the universe. The most famous statement of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument" target="_blank">teleological argument</a> using the watchmaker analogy was given by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley" target="_blank">William Paley</a> in 1802. In 1838, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin" target="_blank">Charles Darwin</a>'s formulation of the theory of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection" target="_blank">natural selection</a> was seen as providing a counter-argument to the Watchmaker analogy. In the United States, starting in the 1980s, the concepts of evolution and natural selection became the subject of national debate, including a renewed interest in the watchmaker argument by both popular atheists<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#cite_note-0" target="_blank">[1]</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement" target="_blank">intelligent design movement</a>.[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" target="_blank">citation needed</a>]The Watchmaker argument The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch" target="_blank">watch</a>. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument" target="_blank">teleological argument</a> and is generally presented as: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.</li> </ol>In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design. In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined.Richard Dawkins Main article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins</a> Dawkins also gives an explanation for complex artifacts, one where a design is not necessary. Dawkins demonstrates through computer simulation that "highly complex" systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated yet <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection" target="_blank">naturally selected</a> steps, rather than an intelligent designer. He further points out the self-refuting nature of the argument: that if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (i.e. God) must also have been designed by something yet more complex. In a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_%28BBC_TV_series%29" target="_blank">Horizon</a> episode also entitled The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins described Paley's argument "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker" target="_blank">Steven Pinker</a> discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution." In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because evolutionists do not consider evolution "lucky". He tells the reader that evolutionists consider the evolution of human life the result of millions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes, evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.</blockquote>

Verification: Haya warak paha keeyada? (haya wadi kireema paha)

Top Bottom