Posted: Aug 02, 2017 11:25 pm
by Fenrir
Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Wortfish wrote:When Paley delivered his watchmaker argument, he never intended it to be a scientific explanation, only a religious argument.

There's no such thing. There's logical arguments, period.
Putting religion into it doesn't magically make it it's own category of arguments that's immune from scientific and/or logical criticisms.

The point is that Paley was making a religious argument for the existence of God. He was not trying to explain how watches are designed. The ID movement claims to have an explanation for biological complexity when all they have is a religious interpretation.
The ID movement, what there is of it, which isn't much, also does not try and explain how watches are designed. All they have is the very same claim as creationists: design, because reasons.

The mistake they make is the same as Paley's, focusing on the irrelevant watch while ignoring the heath. Eppur si muove.