The problem with the Watchmaker Theory
is that it is essentially circular. If one believes in evolution
, then nature
has already built watch
es without requiring any watchmaker
at the beginning of the process; the watchmakers (us) were simply built as part of the process. It is only if one already believes in the Intelligent Design
argument, that complex systems cannot arise without an intelligence
creating them, that the watchmaker argument holds any weight.
The failure in the argument stems from the same anthropocentrism at the root of most ID arguments. We consider a human being to have made the watch, rather than nature having built the watch using a human being, simply because we view most matters as being centered around humans.
If a human built a machine that produced watches, would we consider the machine to have designed the watches that were created? Or would we rather say that it was the human being who designed them? Most people, including by necessity any ID advocates, would say it was the human being who had designed the watches. We once again see the same anthropocentrism. The title of designer is given to the human being because we assume that the act of designing a watch requires intelligence, and we further assume that it is only the human being that is capable of having this intelligence. Unless these assumptions are made, the watchmaker argument is completely circular and void of meaning.