Hello again Attention,
Very astute observations to which I concur wholeheartedly. Just to expand on what you've articulated, the theist who posits an intelligent designer on such analogy fails to consider the ramifications of postulating a watch, of all things. If we dismantle the watch, which any good researcher will do, we will discover it is constructed of very precise parts working synchronously to facilitate the tracking of an arbitrarily established increments of time based on the motions of our planet as it revolves around the its star. The creationist has to admit of a consistancy that allows such a standard to be established accurately. He then is forced to concede this consistency has been explained naturally via the concept of gravity, mass, thermodynamics and a host of other testable theories. He also has to concede that the materials from which this watch has been constructed also have been identified to have observable, verifiable attributes or properties that allow them to be molded, hold their shape, and used for practical purposes. He must also concede these factors occur quite naturally without need for an appeal to the supernatural.
He is forced to concede that apart from being randomly constructed, such an artifice was indeed intelligently built to serve a specific purpose. Along the way to wringing from him these concessions our creationist steps into his own trap of basing his claims on randomness vs. determined purpose...the false dichotomy.
What becomes apparent is his mis-applied connotation of randomness and his overly zealous appeal to purpose.
The creationist's use of "randomness" is quite different from the scientist's application of the same concept. For the scientist there is precious little randomness in nature. Everything has a cause. If a cause can be identified, the effect is no longer random but was determined by the factors inherent in the cause. This is what makes science pragmatic and allows for prediction. But this deterministic value is itself determined by random factors that apply more on a quantum level than anywhere else.
Because the scientist cannot possibly know the details of the collision of every quark leading up to a specific event, every such event will have a random factor that forces the scientist to explain as probability rather than absolutely. Thus he operates on an inductive frequency. The scientist can agree with the creationist that there is an extremely high probability factor that the watch did not assemble itself. But the scientist will agree for different reasons than the creationist. The creationist is led to declare godunnit. The scientist is led to man dunnit. The reason the two arrive at different hypotheticals is due primarily to the knowledge level of each. The scientists will know that the material from which the watch is constructed does not have the properties to self construct. The creationist will be looking at the complexity while the scientist will be looking at the material from which the complexity has been discovered. If the material does not match what the scientist knows about the properties of such material, he will conclude that this object is not constructed from materials with properties sufficient to allow it to self generate.
Another reason the scientist will conclude that the intelligence required to construct the watch could be derived entirely from man is because he also knows that man is the only verifiable organism capable of such creative complexity. To conclude a god at this point is unscientific.
Now the creationist points to complex bio-molecular machinery and makes the same claim while the scientist is quickly discovering that the material from which such organic structures are comprised does have the property of self generated complexity. This has been clinically demonstrated time and again. So it is not the scientist who is making an irrational leap but the theist.
Now let's consider the other half of the coin the creationist flips to determine if his god was here or not. The face of purpose. The creationist assumes that any and all complex structures have a purpose that transcends their existence. Every cloud, every treeline, every body of water has an appearance of both random fractal complexity and has also been "scientifically" determined to have a purpose. Unfortunately for the creationist the purpose has always been interpreted in relation to man...and not god. In fact, the existence of man is the only basic purpose for the existence of the question of an existant god. Thus the creationist assumes that to stumble upon a complex machine that serves a purpose to the survival of an organism, that purpose must have been externally assigned. The simple survivability of the organism is not enough of a reason for the creationist. Because his god has assigned a purpose for the existence of the creationist, he must therefore assume that the existence of all things must also require such assignment. That a thing can simply exist for no other reason than existence itself is quite beyond the intuitive functioning imagination of a theist. To him, every quark in the universe exists for a purpose greater than itself. The inner-connectivity of all things mitigate against extreme randomness and exterior purpose. To the mind unshackled from the supernatural, the existence of the universe is a brute fact and need not have any additional purpose. To such a mind the purpose can be ascribed scientifically, philosophically, morally, pragmatically or aesthetically. If we allow the creationist's purpose asignment, then all things which exist beyond our ability to observe can't even be said to exist. Thus we have entered the post modernist age where rational warrant has been tossed out the window and the theist is all too eager to embrace this if it serves his purpose.
Yes, if we stumble upon a watch in the woods we are quite rational in assuming an intelligent conscious force was responsible for that watch in that location at that time. Are we justified to assert a god here? Not at all. Would the scientist claim the watch assembled itself? Why would he make such an assinine assertion? The purpose for the existence of that watch at that place and time might never be discovered. Perhaps someone lost it? Perhaps someone left it there intentionally with a purpose of their for doing so which we'll likely never know? Perhaps the creationist planted it there to support his belief in a supernatural explanation and purpose for the existence of existence. All we can really do is determine what the watch is made of and decide if nature itself could have constructed it.
If it was constructed by a man, and man was constructed by nature, then we could say it was naturally constructed. Can we say that, without falling into the trap of assuming naturally constructed man demands that nature give an account of her purpose for constructing man? Certainly, **** happens. Considering the heavier elements, of which carbon is one, was constructed in the furnace of the stars, you could say we are the fecal matter of stars. Is there a purpose for matter to behave in a specific way as to lead to self generated complexity? Not that anyone has ever been able to verify beyond the imagination of religion. Does man need an external purpose for his existence? Not unless he's unable to ascribe any purpose of his own. But everytime a man breaths, eats, sleeps, dreams, thinks, works, plays, replicates, and creates...he's writing his own purpose, even if he imagines there's a reason for his existence that transcends his existence. He can't escape the matrix. He can only live, die, feed the worms and be forgotten...unless he can do something to be remembered by. If he doesn't, that makes no difference to the universe. Somebody will because they always have. The only clock man need concern himself with is his own biological clock. That's all the time he gets. But science has enabled man to buy some extra time. Man has effectively doubled the average lifespan in the last 200 years due, primarily, to science.
Those are my thoughts on the matter and are subject, as always, to correction.
