Paley's View On Creationism

Paley argues that because nature in exceptionally complex, it must be designed by an intelligent maker. He is a creationist. Paley uses two significant metaphors to make his point. First, the watchmaker metaphor. The basic idea behind this metaphor is that if you came across a watch on a path and observed the intricate way that that different parts work together, you would assume that it was created by a watchmaker. Paley then goes on to argue that it would not matter if we could not see or know the watchmaker. It also would not matter of we could not comprehend how the watch was made, it is still clear that it was designed. Next, he states that how well the watch works does not matter either, as long as the purpose of the machinery

However, as I have mentioned before, I am not religious so my opinions is somewhat biased. Paley’s main point is that because nature is so complex, it must be designed. Every one of his points comes back to this principal. Complexity equals design. By offering a second explanation for this complexity, Dawkins shows that complexity does not equal design. Thus, he refutes the entire principal of Paley’s argument. Furthermore, as Dawkins points out at the end of our reading, Creationism postulates the existence of a God, who is already complex, to explain complexity. They use the definition to explain the cause. While that does not mean they are wrong, there is no way to prove there is so no God, it does make their point less sound. It also does not prove that a God exists, it just postulates that he does. Darwinism, on the other hand, explains complex design starting from simplicity. Evolution is explainable with elements that we can see. Namely, we can follow the steps. Starting with a simple organism that has variations, the next generations builds on that variations, and so on in a cumulative selection until we have complexity. Furthermore, by explaining that Darwinism is not random, Dawkins proves that the main argument creationists have against it is wrong. Dawkins presents a completely separate and plausible explanation to the complexity of nature. His explanation of cumulative selections illustrates how a simple organism could develop into the complex structures we see today. By taking the same evidence that Paley uses and giving it a different explanations, Dawkins logically refutes Paley’s’ point. I believe that Dawkins has stronger, better supported evidence to support his side than Paley has to support his. In the end, I think that Rachels has it right, Creationism comes down to faith. It is possible that it is correct, but you have to have faith to believe it because there is