Summary Of William Paley's 'Watchmaker Argument'

William Paley set out to create a logical argument called “The Watchmaker Argument” which proves the existence of a creator, and therefore, the existence of God. In “Natural Theology”, Paley argues that due to the complex nature of the universe, the universe must have had a creator. Paley’s argument would seem to make sense, however, when put under modern day scrutiny, does not hold up to the degree that it was originally intended to. Throughout this essay, I will argue that Paley’s Watchmaker is not a logical argument by pointing out the major flaws contained in it, and how they coexist to debunk the argument. Firstly, the argument is not logically sound, being full of bias and fallacies. Secondly, the premises and conclusion of the argument …show more content…
I will debunk the common argument of the complexity of the eye, and why intelligent design of life and nature is against logic. I will begin by acknowledging the complexity of the eye, as it is a wondrous organ which seems to be perfectly designed. However, this is just not the case. The human eye was not designed by a creator specifically for a purpose. In reality, the human eye is the result of necessity and advantage in terms of evolutionary survival., The fact of this change over time can be laid down solely to DNA and gene shuffling. It is empirical fact, backed by undisputable evidence, that everytime offspring of a species is produced, the DNA and genetic information are very slightly changed due to errors made in DNA replication. This process, over time, is what creates changes in species, and in the long run, is the cause of evolution. With this taken into account, the most probable way the eye developed was a growth of light sensitive cells, which grew through a random genetic mutation. Over time, random mutations gradually caused an eye socket shaped structure to form layers in light receptive tissue, which could tell which direction the light was coming from. After many, many mutations, nature, and the conditions that early human ancestors had to live in, favoured better eyesight. In support of my argument that the eye is not intelligently designed, Professor Trevor D. Lamb goes on to say that “The vertebrate eye, far from being intelligently designed, contains numerous defects that attest to its evolutionary origin.” Some if these defects are: blood vessels across the surface of the retina, the optic nerve creating a blind spot, and an inside out retina. These defects further prove that the eye is not perfectly designed by a creator. Taking all this evidence in account, it provides logical and reasonable permission to label the argument from design outdated, incorrect and