Paley’s Casio
Over the past week, I’ve been having this great discussion about creation/evolution over on the “Parchment and Pen” blog. I would encourage anyone who visits this site to head over there when you’re done here (and then to Amazon to buy BTF!).
But now I’m in the mood for a little humor. I thought of this silly little anecdote while I was jogging yesterday. Everyone has heard of William Paley (1743-1805), the English philosopher and theologian who made the first argument from design by comparing the universe to a finely-tuned timepiece. Just as the existence of a watch points directly to the existence of a watchmaker, so the existence of the universe points directly to the Creator of all things.
I personally think this is a great argument, but sometimes it is taken too far. Rather than stop with the ontological argument of design based on the created order, many Christians skip right over the scientific case for an evolutionary view of creation in favor of an instantaneous appearance of all things in their current state, as if only one or the other can be true. But the fact that a watch is clearly designed says nothing about how it was actually assembled, and many of us make the logical leap straight from design to special creation, despite the mountains of physical evidence suggesting that creation may have been achieved through “natural” processes. But according to the Christian worldview, even “natural” processes are not ultimately natural since they too were designed by the creator (ie: the “fine tuning” argument) for the sole purpose of achieving His creative agenda.
So here is the story: there is a Young-Earth Creationist (YEC), and Old-Earth Creationist (OEC), an Intelligent Design (ID) supporter, an Evolutionary Atheist (EA), and an Evolutionary Creationist (EC) all walking through the woods. They stumble upon a 1980’s vintage Casio Twin Graph digital wristwatch that is obviously showing its age.
The ID supporter declares, “Look at this, a 1980’s vintage Casio Twin Graph, and it still works! It’s complexity obviously suggests that it was designed for a specified purpose by an intelligent being. In fact, this designer must have put it together himself out of pieces shaped by his own hands. Amazing!”
The OEC chimes in, “Yes, I agree that it was designed for a specified purpose, and since it is obviously a 1980’s vintage Casio, and judging by all of the wear and tear on this one, I’d say the designer assembled it himself over 20 years ago.”
The EA immediately objects, “Both of you are dilusional. Everybody knows that watches are made in factories by machines. This is a scientific fact. And even though this watch appears to have been assembled with a purpose to accomplish a specified task, no designer was necessary. If you give those machines at the factory enough time, they’ll eventually figure it out on their own. And 2o years is plenty of time to for them to have figured this out.”
The YEC concludes, “Don’t you see what’s going here. If you agree with Mr. EA that the watch is old, then you must also agree with him that no designer was necessary, and that those machines at the factory just put it all together by accident. So I choose to believe that the watch must have been assembled only minutes before we found it, in a fully developed state with all the wear and tear of something that was 20 years old. This leaves no time for those machines acting randomly to make it look like it was designed. And besides, since the battery still has juice in it, this proves conclusively that it can’t be 20 years old.”
The OEC shoots back, “So which is it? Was the watch created with the appearance of age, except for the battery - which certainly would have died by now had the apearance of age been consistent. Or are you saying that the new battery proves that the entire watch can’t actually be 20 years old? You can’t have it both ways. What if the watch really is 20 years old, and the owner just changed the battery recently? That makes more sense than your scenario.”
At this point, the YEC starts to get testy, “You think you’re so smart, but if you agree with the EA that it is old, then you are supporting his view that it also created itself, or that it was created in a factory by blind and purposeless machines. Jesus said that if you are not with me, you are against me! Choose this day whom you will serve!”
They immediately all start shouting at eachother when the EC interrupts, “Hey guys, all of this arguing is silly. Obviously this timepiece was designed. We all know (well, except for Mr. EA over there) that things like this are designed by their creator for a specific purpose. But this watch says right here on the back - ‘Casio Twin Graph, Made in Japan, 1985′ - so the designers obviously used a factory to carry out their plans to create the watch, and this factory was somewhere in Japan, and this particular watch left the factory about 22 years ago, was obviously worn, and somebody must have changed the battery recently. Gee-wiz! Can’t we continue our hike now?”
Ok, Ok - so obviously no analogy is perfect. But this dynamic is very similar to how these different groups approach the study of nature. Let me know what you think!
-GJG
September 11th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Very good story, and I think it covers the various positions nicely. The thing that is most glaringly missing from most “watchmaker” arguments is the simple concept of the organic v. the static. You can’t compare a watch to a living being, since the one can not change, the other can. And, if something can change, there is the possibility that it can change a LOT. And, given enough time, amazing things can happen.
While I am sympathetic to the idea of design, I am not convinced it is necessarily a “proof” that should be convincing to the non-believer (as much as I would love that). I think that that ID preaches to the choir because it presumes that what we ended up with is what must have been, then considers the odds of THIS happening (which is astronomical). The alternative for the non-believer is that if you start from square one, with life and change (OK, that would be square 2), and just let it go, then there is nothing preventing very complex things from happening even without a particular controller or designer. I am open to the idea that some form of irreducible complexity could be shown that would move ID into a convincing area, but every time they have presented an example of “see, THAT could not have happened without guidance!”, then someone comes along and show how it very well could have happened.
I am hoping that ID does, indeed, find the convincing “proof” of our designer, but I suspect that it will remain a matter of faith in things not seen. And, really, that is fine with me.
September 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Thank you for the delightful play on Paley’s watch!
I like your analogy not because it is perfect, but because it gives a framework to make certain arguments succinctly. I particularly appreciate how you deal with the appearance of age argument, and the functional battery. I have long wondered about the inconsistency of the YEC appearance-of-age argument (which virtually renders all scientific evidence useless in the quest for cosmological age) and their subsequent appeal to various young-age “scientific” indicators such as Helium diffusion. What? did God forget about that one? And if (assuming YEC) God left us a few irrefutable clues that the earth is, in fact, young, doesn’t that remove the argument that we must accept a literal Genesis 1 by faith despite the scientific evidence to the contrary? The illogical baffles me. (Though I must confess, I was 20 years in the YEC camp and it all seemed logical at the time!)
I have ordered you book and look forward to the reading!
September 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Vance, I totally agree with your ID conclusions. As Christians, we know that all of creation declares God’s handiwork. But that same chapter of Romans also tells us that the natural man will not accept this, which is exactly what we see playing out.
Since science is only concerned with material cause and effect, it should be no suprise that Scientists are mostly only concerned with material cause and effect. So ID is completely useless on two counts: (1) it fails as an apologetic, and (2) it fails as a scientific theory because it doesn’t explain anything in terms of material cause and effect.
I’ve got two posts from June along these lines that might interest you:
My review of Behe’s last book:
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/06/10/the-edge-of-evolution/
And my take on Dobson’s “Truth Project”:
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/05/31/the-truth-project/
Also, I set up your BTF registration so that your comments are automatically posted, and don’t sit in purgatory waiting for me to approve them. Welcome to the BTF blog!
-GJG
September 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Thanks Cliff!
Yes, trying to show that the entire watch must be young based on the age of a single component (the battery), is very typical of YEC handwaiving that often passes for “science” in Christians bookstores. To the layman, they can sound very convincing, but there are many good analogies that can drive the point home. Glad you liked it!
There is another twist on the appearance-of-age arguement that you will find in my book. That is, if scripture is the only means we have to distinquish “apparent” natural history from “authentic” natural history, what do we then do about the 35 flat-earth passages? Or the 67 geocentric passages? Perhaps the mustard seed really is the smallest seed and the orchid seed only “appears” smaller? Or perhaps the moon really does produce it’s own light and only “appears” to reflect the light of the sun? You can see what a circus that becomes!
From now on, your comments will also bypass moderation. Good to see you here! I also look forward to your thoughtful comments on BTF!
-GJG
September 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I also ordered the book and I should have it shortly, but I also just received in the mail Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. It looks good (based on the Table of Contents), so my “to read” pile has just gotten bigger!