“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.
