The watch analogy

[REstudent2010]

I want your views on the analogy of the watch and the universe. That a watch is intricate and must have a creator and the universe is more intricate and unique therefore it must have a creator and the creator must be God. I need your views soon. Thnx for reading. Please reply.:shout:help:

 

[Revoltingest]

The watch analogy isn't an analogy. Cosmology & evolution, for example, are stochastic processes. Making a watch is not.

 

[Skwim]

Most importantly, the complexity of the universe is a result of having evolved because of its very nature. Watches, by there very nature, are not evolved or evolving structures. And of course, the argument has been shot down numerous times. Do a Wiki search if you're really interested. Something like "comparison watch universe" should do the trick.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our technology is also a long way off from making a watch which can reproduce with other watches
in a survival-of-the-fittest environment. I'd worry about genetically engineered potatoes first.....
Joad Cressbeckler Fears Genetic Modification Causes 'Wrath-Minded Taters' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | Onion News Network

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I want your views on the analogy of the watch and the universe. That a watch is intricate and must have a creator and the universe is more intricate and unique therefore it must have a creator and the creator must be God. I need your views soon. Thnx for reading. Please reply.:shout:help:

The argument has some serious flaws:

- Intricacy isn't what leads us to infer design. There are plenty of intricate things that nobody generally assumes are designed.

- In reality, I think that one of the things that helps us to infer design is that a thing stands out from the background: if you find a watch in the desert, you can recognize that it's materially different from everything around it, and that this might imply that it has a different cause than everything around it. However, if you're arguing that everything is "like a watch", then you can't do this: you can't pull one watch out of a sea of watches and declare it to be special. In order to infer design, you need some sort of undesigned "background" that serves as the basis of the distinction.

- It's inherently a special pleading argument. If the intricacy of a watch implies that it requires a creator, then the even greater intricacy of God must imply even more strongly that God also requires a creator.

- It also amounts to an argument from ignorance: there's no more merit in the argument "we can't see any apparent unintelligent process that would have led to complex thing 'X', so it must have been a hidden intelligent process" than there is in
"we can't see any apparent intelligent process that would have led to complex thing 'X', so it must have been a hidden unintelligent process". If you can use the same reasoning to support both your argument AND its refutation, then this is usually a sign that there's some bad logic in there somewhere.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Those who put stock in the watchmaker analogy, tend to be ignorant of both watches and evolution.

 

[Breathe]

Damn it. I'd written something nice up, and then my browser logged me out and I lost it all.

Well, again, welcome to RF, REStudent2010.

To keep it short now since I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said since writing it: I agree with all posters above me.

It may be worth noting REStudent, that I am one who believes in a God-concept who also finds flaws within the watchmaker analogy.


With the fact that there is no evolution within the watchmaker analogy, there's a question of what's going on in the mind of the Divine, with the creation of wings on ostriches, ectopic pregnancies, the "inside out" structure of the retina of mammals, and the appendix to name a few things. Why these would be there if we were poofed into existence like this, for example?

Plus, it's worth noting that turkeys are really weird looking, and if we were created in these forms by an entity with these in mind, what is going on in Its head?

Spoiler: See?

Bleugh.

Even if we lose the creation-centric nature that often comes with the watchmaker analogy, we basically have "Hey, the universe is nice and orderly, so there must be a God". Not necessarily true for either.


Just this fool's two cents.

 

[truseeker]

Usually things in nature tend to become LESS organized and decay sets in. So it is hard to see how all these complex organisms became MORE organized and evolved into more complex things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Usually things in nature tend to become LESS organized and decay sets in. So it is hard to see how all these complex organisms became MORE organized and evolved into more complex things.

Do you realize that you just argued both sides of the same issue? Do things in nature usually become less or more organized with time? You just gave both answers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you realize that you just argued both sides of the same issue? Do things in nature usually become less or more organized with time? You just gave both answers.

Moreover, just how does one define & quantify "organization"?

 

[Morse]

- In reality, I think that one of the things that helps us to infer design is that a thing stands out from the background: if you find a watch in the desert, you can recognize that it's materially different from everything around it, and that this might imply that it has a different cause than everything around it. However, if you're arguing that everything is "like a watch", then you can't do this: you can't pull one watch out of a sea of watches and declare it to be special. In order to infer design, you need some sort of undesigned "background" that serves as the basis of the distinction.

That's really fascinating, and it makes a lot of sense. If we were composed of materials not found in our world, design would be implied. However, as humanity is created from the same materials as the rest of the natural world (and the same goes for everything else, simply replace humans with X or Y), we all must be of the same source. In tandem with that, since there is nothing to give us a sense of perspective, there is no distinction. I love it! Frubals for you, I had not considered this.

Usually things in nature tend to become LESS organized and decay sets in. So it is hard to see how all these complex organisms became MORE organized and evolved into more complex things.

I'm pretty sure this is pulled from an incorrect/misguided view of the second law of thermodynamics. Things in nature, as you put it, do indeed tend to become less organized and decay will set in as long as the system is closed. That means no energy is being transferred into or out of the system. Earth, however, is not a closed system because energy is constantly being pumped into earth by the sun. This allows for complexity to arise, rather than chaos.

I want your views on the analogy of the watch and the universe. That a watch is intricate and must have a creator and the universe is more intricate and unique therefore it must have a creator and the creator must be God. I need your views soon. Thnx for reading. Please reply.:shout:help:

Here is a really neat link I stumbled upon a while back:

[youtube]mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube]
Evolution is a blind watchmaker​

Keep in mind that this video is just humoring the argument, and disregarding the four reasons listed at the beginning of the video for why this argument doesn't work, but it does not invalidate them! That really is a good explanation for it.

Regards,
Morse

 

[Revoltingest]

Increasing entropy in a closed system is a decreasing ability to perform work (eg, chemical reactions) due to reduced
available energy (eg, kinetic, thermal, potential). In what way do things become less organized as entropy increases?

 

[Morse]

Increasing entropy in a closed system is a decreasing ability to perform work (eg, chemical reactions) due to reduced
available energy (eg, kinetic, thermal, potential). In what way do things become less organized as entropy increases?

In his post he mentioned that it was difficult to see how things became complex because things tend to decay and become less organized (because of this, I assumed he meant less complex or that they simply never become complex) over time. So I assumed that the conversation had jumped to the "Complexity cannot arise because of thermodynamics"

Complexity requires energy (a lot it), and as you said as entropy increases, there is less available energy and hence organisms wouldn't evolve. Of course, the entire argument posed by the creation/ID proponents is invalid because it assumes earth is a closed system.

 

[Revoltingest]

In his post he mentioned that it was difficult to see how things became complex because things tend to decay and become less organized (because of this, I assumed he meant less complex or that they simply never become complex) over time. So I assumed that the conversation had jumped to the "Complexity cannot arise because of thermodynamics"

Complexity requires energy (a lot it), and as you said as entropy increases, there is less available energy and hence organisms wouldn't evolve. Of course, the entire argument posed by the creation/ID proponents is invalid because it assumes earth is a closed system.

"Complexity" is not really a thermodynamic argument, which is about temperature & energy flow.
No one has yet been able to explain to me what complexity is, how to quantify it, & how it relates
to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Complexity seems an irrelevant matter. But there's no energy
based argument in thermodynamics to prevent intelligent life being an emergent property of a
closed system. Of course, entropy tells us that "heat death" looms in the distant future.

 

[Morse]

Okay, here are a few links to sites where I've seen the topic brought up. I swear this wasn't of my own invention!

Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Evolution Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics - SkepticWiki
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

So yeah I didn't just make this up (if that was what I was implying), and no I don't believe that thermodynamics invalidates evolution. But yes I do see that my argument against it was flawed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, here are a few links to sites where I've seen the topic brought up. I swear this wasn't of my own invention!

Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Evolution Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics - SkepticWiki
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

So yeah I didn't just make this up (if that was what I was implying), and no I don't believe that thermodynamics invalidates evolution. But yes I do see that my argument against it was flawed.

I know that you didn't make it up. I've heard this order vs disorder stuff before. But I've never met anyone who actually understands it enuf to explain it.
Since the 2nd law originated with working fluids in a steam engine, I suspect that someone is turning it into something it isn't.
From a heat/temperature/energy standpoint, thermodynamics has no conflict with evolution.

 

[Morse]

I know that you didn't make it up. I've heard this order vs disorder stuff before. But I've never met anyone who actually understands it enuf to explain it.
Since the 2nd law originated with working fluids in a steam engine, I suspect that someone is turning it into something it isn't.
From a heat/temperature/energy standpoint, thermodynamics has no conflict with evolution.

Excellent then, I will begin doing some research. The best thing to do when you misunderstand something is to begin understanding it.

Now back to watches...

 

[Revoltingest]

Excellent then, I will begin doing some research. The best thing to do when you misunderstand something is to begin understanding it.

I wouldn't say that you misunderstand it. But further research is good. Frubulations for that!

 

[truseeker]

Which is more likely - If a car runs into a tree it will turn into a lot of loose pieces? or if there are a lot of car parts in a garage and an earthquake dumps them into a pile on the floor they will come together to form a car?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Which is more likely - If a car runs into a tree it will turn into a lot of loose pieces? or if there are a lot of car parts in a garage and an earthquake dumps them into a pile on the floor they will come together to form a car?

They're both far more likely than you ever understanding evolutionary theory.