In the Natural Theology, William Paley uses an example of a self-replicating watch to argue for the existence of a universal creator. He believes that the universe, like the watch, has an innate, intricate design and as such, a designer. Paley argues that if the watch were capable of creating identical copies of itself his argument would not weaken, but actually be supported. For Paley this is because the watch itself is not responsible for its design or purpose, and merely passes these aspects to the successive identical watches. However this concept hinges on the watch not being its own designer, and the designer being responsible for its current and consistent appearance. How does this idea of a static unchanging design account for the evolutionary
…show more content…
Paley begins by engaging with his reader, asking them what they would think if they were to discover a rock laying in a field and then questioning why their reaction would differ if they had found a watch in place of the rock. He is aware that in the case of the rock one would be content to say it may have always been there, although they would not be content with this answer upon seeing the watch. He questions the reader’s assumptions, asking, “Why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone” (Paley, 565). This questioning is meant to lead the reader to arguing that the watch must have been created and could not have come to be from natural processes. Paley argues for the necessity of the watch’s creator writing, “the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for purpose… who comprehended its construction and designated its use” The presence of a creator for Paley is implied by the complexity of the watch, it could not have come into being without something capable of understanding and assembling it. The finder of the watch rightfully concludes that upon examination, “it must have had had, for the cause and author of that construction an artificer, who understood its mechanism, and designated its use” (Paley
Paley begins by engaging with his reader, asking them what they would think if they were to discover a rock laying in a field and then questioning why their reaction would differ if they had found a watch in place of the rock. He is aware that in the case of the rock one would be content to say it may have always been there, although they would not be content with this answer upon seeing the watch. He questions the reader’s assumptions, asking, “Why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone” (Paley, 565). This questioning is meant to lead the reader to arguing that the watch must have been created and could not have come to be from natural processes. Paley argues for the necessity of the watch’s creator writing, “the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for purpose… who comprehended its construction and designated its use” The presence of a creator for Paley is implied by the complexity of the watch, it could not have come into being without something capable of understanding and assembling it. The finder of the watch rightfully concludes that upon examination, “it must have had had, for the cause and author of that construction an artificer, who understood its mechanism, and designated its use” (Paley