Paley`s metaphor

[idunno]

I have a believer who is a famous TV presenter telling me abot the Paley metaphor about the clock.If you find a clock you assume it was made by an i ntelligent person, so why not think that this inteligent universe was made by a god,though not the god of the bible?
Furthermore,natural selection,the inteligent way it was conceived shows a sign of higher inteligence.Comments or links to the believer?

[Wowbagger]

There are, of course, several problems with Paley's argument:

* He is making an assumption that complex things can not occur in nature, without intelligent intervention. He is not providing an actual physical demonstration to test that assumption.
(I have to find a good link to Dawkins' "Design vs. Designoid" speech.)

* We can research who the watchmaker was. We can not research who the "Creator of Life" was, directly.

* Watches do not reproduce themselves. Life forms do, and often with modification. Therefore, there is an opportunity for Natural Selection to take place directly amongst descendants of life forms.

* The "complexity" often mentioned about the watch is entirely subjective. Science aims to deal with the empirical as much as possible.

Etc.

[mijopaalmc]

idunno-

Paley's metaphor is at least 206 years old. The only thing "novel" about it is that intelligent design proponents keep repeating it as if it refutes evolution. It has been much discussed and refuted. For an overview, see here (http://skepdic.com/design.html).

[the PC apeman]

If I were to encounter God, should I assume he was created by an even more complex entity?

[FireGarden]

Ask your friend what he thinks about the design of the spotted hyena:
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1995/3/sexandthespottedhyena.cfm

To the untrained eye, females look and act almost exactly like males. The two sexes' remarkable resemblance goes right down to the nitty-gritty of their genitals, which appear to be identical.

[...] Female spotted hyenas bear, suckle, and care for their young like any female mammal. But although their genitals are clearly female in function, they are male in form. The labia are fused into what looks like a scrotum, complete with two pads of fatty tissue that resemble testes. In addition, the clitoris is elongated to the point that it is nearly the size of a male's penis and is likewise fully erectile. Astonishingly, females mate and give birth through the long, narrow canal running down the center of this "pseudopenis." During mating it retracts much like a shirt sleeve being pushed up, and during birth it stretches so much that it looks like a water balloon. "From a human perspective, the process can be thought of as giving birth through an unusually large penis," says Frank.

[...] At only six-inches long, the umbilical cord is far too short to traverse the foot-long canal down the pseudopenis, which means that either the placenta detaches or the cord breaks before the baby is born. (For comparison, in women the birth canal is only a few inches long and the umbilical cord is a generous foot and a half long.) The longer a hyena's labor, the more likely her baby is to suffocate and be stillborn--and the more likely the mother is to die. In captivity, first-time mothers labor as long as 48 hours and nearly three-quarters of first-born cubs die. Without veterinary help, many of these mothers probably would have died along with their babies; in the wild, many females die at three to four years, the age when hyenas typically first give birth.

The design works, whatever we think of it. Hyenas are in competition with dogs and other mammals and still surviving.

But, honestly, if it was up to you to design the spotted hyena... And you already have the plans for mammals with umbelical cords of sufficient length...



And, another point...
When I see a watch, I assume a need to tell time. The watch has a purpose. If God is all powerful, then what need has he of an artifact?

[Earthborn]

* Watches do not reproduce themselves.That's an argument that doesn't apply to Paley's analogy, though it is an argument that can be used against the way it is usually presented by creationists. Paley probably anticipated the objection that watches do not reproduce, and in his argumentation (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A142&viewtype=text&pageseq=1) it actually does:CHAPTER II.
STATE OF THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
SUPPOSE, in the next place, that the person who found the watch, should, after some time, discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement, another watch like itself (the thing is conceivable); that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, files, and other tools, evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us inquire, what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion.Paley's argument is probably the best ever formulated for Intelligent Design, at first glance so persuasive that people are still echoeing it after 200 years. But proponents of creationism and Intelligent Design who echo it seem to have forgotten how subtle the argument actually is. Paley does not argue that if you find a watch you must necessarily assume that it has a maker, he argues that if you find a watch that can reproduce itself, you must stand in awe of whoever first came up with such a thing even if you cannot prove that the watch you are holding is the product of deliberate design.

[dglas]

idunno-

Paley's metaphor is at least 206 years old. The only thing "novel" about it is that intelligent design proponents keep repeating it as if it refutes evolution. It has been much discussed and refuted. For an overview, see here (http://skepdic.com/design.html).

Well, to be fair, we shouldn't be quite so quick to give the IDers so much credit. It wasn't them who thought of "irreducible complexity" as a refutation, it was Darwin himself (although he didn't use those words).

So they are hashing at a point that Darwin himself acknowledged as something that would destroy his theory.

[Ichneumonwasp]

In reply I would say refer to David Hume's Dialogues Concering Natural Religion (http://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Concerning-Natural-Religion-David/dp/1434697355/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205782913&sr=1-22). While not restricted to the design argument, it certainly covers it in some detail.

[Wowbagger]

Paley does not argue that if you find a watch you must necessarily assume that it has a maker, he argues that if you find a watch that can reproduce itself, you must stand in awe of whoever first came up with such a thing even if you cannot prove that the watch you are holding is the product of deliberate design. Worth noting. Thanks!

[The Grave]

idunno-

Paley's metaphor is at least 206 years old. The only thing "novel" about it is that intelligent design proponents keep repeating it as if it refutes evolution. It has been much discussed and refuted. For an overview, see here (http://skepdic.com/design.html).

Such a good link deserves to be here twice!:uk:

[Complexity]

I have a believer who is a famous TV presenter telling me abot the Paley metaphor about the clock.If you find a clock you assume it was made by an i ntelligent person, so why not think that this inteligent universe was made by a god,though not the god of the bible?
Furthermore,natural selection,the inteligent way it was conceived shows a sign of higher inteligence.Comments or links to the believer?


A fool carrying a fool's dung.

[JoeEllison]

When you see a weed, you don't assume that it was put there by any "intelligence." Since the universe is more weeds than watches by a factor probably too great to define, the idea of any "intelligence" behind the universe seems to be completely unsupported by the evidence.

More importantly, imagine a watch designed by an all-powerful creator. It would just tell you the right time, every time. No moving parts, no winding or need for a battery, not "accurate to within one second a decade" but perfectly accurate forever. The band would never chafe, the face would never scratch, it would fit every wearer perfectly with no need for adjustment or alteration. No part of it would ever show the the signs of compromise or imperfection in its design or manufacture.

Now, Paley's hypothetical watch shows no sign that it was designed by an all-powerful creator. Every aspect of a watch is designed based on the limitations of its creator's ability, access to materials, the laws of physics, and the compromises that exist in any consumer product. No watch is perfectly accurate. Every watch needs a power source of one kind or another. Parts wear out or break. The surfaces can be marred, damaged, or corroded. Size considerations limit the construction of the watch. It may feel too heavy or too light, and it may not fit every wrist comfortably. In no sense is Paley's hypothetical watch an example of a particularly powerful creator.

By the same token, the universe doesn't appear to be particularly well-designed. Evolution, especially, appears to be a slipshod method of "designing" life, considering all the obvious flaws. There's are guiding principles in general, based in the laws of physics, but there's nothing particularly impressive with it that would make you think a "god" had anything to do with it. If life were compared to a watch, it would be a too-heavy affair, laden with parts from earlier designs that serve no current function, and that breaks down and wears out way too often.

[Radrook]

Ask your friend what he thinks about the design of the spotted hyena:
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1995/3/sexandthespottedhyena.cfm And, another point... When I see a watch, I assume a need to tell time. The watch has a purpose. If God is all powerful, then what need has he of an artifact?

From a biblical standpoint, the universe has a purpose-it provides a dimension where God can place his material intelligent creation. It also has the purpose of speaking eloquently of God's power.

Psalm 148:3
Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!

As for needs, God is complete unto himself and lacking nothing really needs nothing.

Isaiah 55:9
“ For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

If he shares life it's done out of love-not out of need as you describe need, or as humans are imagined to desperately need.

1 John 4:8
....for God is love.

As for artifacts, humans aren't artifacts. Humans are referred to as his children.

Luke 3:38
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Nevertheless, the things provided for their use, in order to satisfy their human needs can be viewed that way.

Psalm 8

3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?....

6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.
=========================================
Bolding Mine

[JoeEllison]

From a biblical standpoint, the universe has a purpose-it provides a dimension where God can place his material intelligent creation. It also has the purpose of speaking eloquently of God's power.

Yeah, many mythologies make a claim towards some purpose for the universe, assigned to it by the nonexistent deity in question, along with claims of power that seem immature and silly to a more rational reader. Sheepherder superstition isn't generally a useful way to gain knowledge about the universe, or anything in it, besides the psychology of the creators of and believers in that particular superstition.

[FireGarden]

From a biblical standpoint, the universe has a purpose-it provides a dimension where God can place his material intelligent creation. It also has the purpose of speaking eloquently of God's power.

Psalm 148:3
Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!

So the universe exists to serve God's need to be praised. I suppose that counts as a purpose. God may be all powerful, but he isn't going to worship himself.

If he shares life it's done out of love-not out of need as you describe need, or as humans are imagined to desperately need.

So when God has a need to be praised, how should 'need' be described in that case?

[FireGarden]

When you see a weed, you don't assume that it was put there by any "intelligence." Since the universe is more weeds than watches by a factor probably too great to define, the idea of any "intelligence" behind the universe seems to be completely unsupported by the evidence.

Hume used a comparison to an architect:
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

If the building sucks bit-time, the architect could go on claiming that things had to be that way. We don't have the expertise to argue. But Hume's point is that, if we were to begin without knowing that the architect is competent, there would be nothing in the building to suggest he was -- let alone that he was the best possible architect.

Which takes things back to my spotted Hyena example. Things might have to be that way for some reason I cannot fathom. Hume's response (paraphrased): "I may be fully convinced of the narrow limits of my understanding. But I must form my inference from what I know, not from what I am ignorant of."

[CFLarsen]

Bob Riggins demolishes Paley's argument in this article (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/watchdesert.htm).

And I mean controlled demolition. :D

[Earthborn]

Bob Riggins demolishes Paley's argument in this article (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/watchdesert.htm).It effectively demolishes the way the argument is often presented, but it does not demolish in itself the argument made by Paley. Paley didn't say that the watch had to be made by a designer or spontaneously assemble itself. He did not even say that if it did not have a designer it had to come from supernatural means. He actually considered the possibility that the watch may have been made by a previous watch through natural processes, in a way forshadowing concepts such as reproductive robots and artificial life.

[CFLarsen]

It effectively demolishes the way the argument is often presented, but it does not demolish in itself the argument made by Paley. Paley didn't say that the watch had to be made by a designer or spontaneously assemble itself. He did not even say that if it did not have a designer it had to come from supernatural means. He actually considered the possibility that the watch may have been made by a previous watch through natural processes, in a way forshadowing concepts such as reproductive robots and artificial life.

But what made the watch-making watch?

Watch what you're saying. What watch? Ten watch. Such much? Watch what you made me do. I can't stop. Just watch me.

[X]

It effectively demolishes the way the argument is often presented, but it does not demolish in itself the argument made by Paley. Paley didn't say that the watch had to be made by a designer or spontaneously assemble itself. He did not even say that if it did not have a designer it had to come from supernatural means. He actually considered the possibility that the watch may have been made by a previous watch through natural processes, in a way forshadowing concepts such as reproductive robots and artificial life.


There's a very interesting video on YouTube about this very argument by cdk007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Click to view.

[the PC apeman]

What watch? Ten watch. Such much?One of my favorite movies. :)

[Earthborn]

;3552123']There's a very interesting video on YouTube about this very argument by cdk007.I've seen it before. Interesting stuff, and a pity that one cannot send it back in time to show it to William Paley. But it is not the same argument; the clocks in this video have not evolved mechanisms to reproduce themselves. The reproduction of these clocks works kinda like magic while it is used as an argument in favour of evolution, while the reproducing watch in Paley's Natural Philosophy works by natural processes and is used as an argument in favour of an intelligent designer... Which is kinda ironic, don't you think?

[Elizabeth I]

Which takes things back to my spotted Hyena example. Things might have to be that way for some reason I cannot fathom. Hume's response (paraphrased): "I may be fully convinced of the narrow limits of my understanding. But I must form my inference from what I know, not from what I am ignorant of."

If only more people would follow that guideline!

[X]

I've seen it before. Interesting stuff, and a pity that one cannot send it back in time to show it to William Paley. But it is not the same argument; the clocks in this video have not evolved mechanisms to reproduce themselves. The reproduction of these clocks works kinda like magic while it is used as an argument in favour of evolution, while the reproducing watch in Paley's Natural Philosophy works by natural processes and is used as an argument in favour of an intelligent designer... Which is kinda ironic, don't you think?


So now, seeing that timekeeping mechanism could evolve from simple parts, you want the clocks to have evolved a method of reproduction?
Reading Paley's argument, it seems he is merely assuming that such a mechanism exists and from that immediately concluding that such a thing could not have evolved. He is arguing his conclusion using his conclusion.

Here's a primer from what seems to be an ID source. (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/sex.html)
Here's another site. (http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html)

Forgive the fact that I am about as far from being a biologist as is possible to be.
I reckon someone else on this board can answer question better, but I gave it a shot.

[Earthborn]

;3552506']Reading Paley's argument, it seems he is merely assuming that such a mechanism exists and from that immediately concluding that such a thing could not have evolved. Paley's argument is not an argument against Darwinian evolution, as he formulated it long before Darwin wrote about his theory of evolution. Darwin, who likely knew the Paley's argument, managed to provide naturalistic explanations for the things Paley could only explain by assuming a Creator.

He is arguing his conclusion using his conclusion.That's true. He could not conceive of a way the complex mechanisms of living beings could have come about through natural processes and thought they appeared contrived, which he concludes requires a contriver. With the benefit of knowledge about natural selection, inheritence and mutation it is not difficult to see how his argument is flawed.

So now, seeing that timekeeping mechanism could evolve from simple parts, you want the clocks to have evolved a method of reproduction?
For the clocks to be similar to Paley's watch, yes of course. Paley's watch does have a mechanism of reproduction (but not of evolution).


Here's a primer from what seems to be an ID source. (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/sex.html)
Here's another site. (http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html)I fail to see the relevance of these sites.

[Radrook]

So the universe exists to serve God's need to be praised. I suppose that counts as a purpose. God may be all powerful, but he isn't going to worship himself.

There is no need. However, there is an expectancy he has that his reasoning creatures should be law-abiding. The universe exists in order to provide a home for his creatures-both human, angelic or otherwise. Worship is just another words for showing respect and apreciation and be a good citizen of God's universe. That's all worship is.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Philippians 3:20
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,


So when God has a need to be praised, how should 'need' be described in that case?

There is no such need-if by need you mean that he would be unable to exist without interaction with others. There was an infinity of time during which he was alone and needed no one. So the motivating factor isn't need but a desire motivated by love to share life with others instead of selfishly hoarding it to himself. Since our being good citizens of his universe leads to life, he feels glad about our right choices.

Proverbs 23:15
My son, if your heart is wise, My heart will rejoice—indeed, I myself;

[RandFan]

There was an infinity of time during which he was alone and needed no one. So the motivating factor isn't need but a desire motivated by love to share life with others instead of selfishly hoarding it to himself. Why did he wait and infinity of time to create humans? It looks as though there was a change in state of an unchanging god.

If he was so unselfish why did he create people knowing that most would suffer for all eternity?

Would you do that? I wouldn't. I would rather die than bring a being into existence just so it could suffer eternally.

[FireGarden]

There is no such need-if by need you mean that he would be unable to exist without interaction with others.

Needs don't have to be life or death -- like the need to breathe.

A watch satisfies the need to tell time. That's how it has a purpose. Or it might be jewellery, satisfiying a need to show off or appreciate beauty.

As soon as an individual has an aim or goal, then they have a need. If God's aim was to share life, then he needed a living thing to share life with. He couldn't have achieved the goal without satisfying the need.

Needing something is a sign of not being all-powerful, but I thought I'd given you a good out. It isn't easy to argue that self-worship is a talent required of an all-powerful being.

There is no need. However, there is an expectancy he has that his reasoning creatures should be law-abiding. The universe exists in order to provide a home for his creatures-both human, angelic or otherwise. Worship is just another words for showing respect and apreciation and be a good citizen of God's universe. That's all worship is.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Philippians 3:20
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

I don't see how you get your interpretation of worship out of those quotes.

[Beerina]

Furthermore,natural selection,the inteligent way it was conceived shows a sign of higher inteligence.Comments or links to the believer?

Hold on. Is he acknowledging natural selection, i.e. evolution, and claiming it points to a god who created this amazing process?!?!?


Well, it hadda happen sooner or later.