DID A WATCHMAKER MAKE THE WATCH?
   
By John D.  Morris, Ph.D.
   
In the early 1880's, William Paley published a carefully argued paper 
entitled, "Natural Theology," which developed a convincing case for 
the necessity of a Designer to produce the intricate design we see in 
living systems.
   
He referred to human machines such as a watch, claiming we would never 
conclude, upon discovery of a watch, that it was the result of natural 
processes such as wind and rain.  By observing the order of the 
organism, the purpose of each part, and the interdependence of the 
parts, one would never conclude that it happened by chance.
   
This, I think, is a key Biblical argument for creation.  In a strict 
sense, it is not a scientific argument, but it is an intuitive 
argument. 

In the debates in which I have participated, I always call 
attention to the design in living things.  Perhaps the best example is 
a "simple," single-celled organism.  Although the simplest of all 
organisms, such a protozoan is very complex, comprised of scores of 
functioning parts, each performing a specific function and all working 
together for the good of the whole.  Remove any one of these 
functioning parts, and the whole organism dies.  There are, by some 
estimates, tens of thousands of enzyme reactions occurring within each 
cell, all necessary right from the start.  Of course, almost all of 
this information comes from the wondrous DNA code, the precise 
arrangement of genes which directs all growth and function.  

Furthermore, each gene, each organelle, each aspect of the cell is 
made up of complex protein molecules--specifically arranged chains of 
amino acids precisely placed for a particular purpose.
   
To propose that a living, replicating cell arose without design from 
non-living matter is easily the weakest point of evolution theory--so 
weak that many famous scientists, who have worked for years to find a 
plausible way it might have happened (like Nobel-Prize-winning 
geneticist, Dr.  Francis Crick), have concluded that life evolved 
somewhere out in space where conditions are different from those here 
on Earth, because it evidently could not happen here.
   
Today's evolutionists ignore Paley's argument for design in living 
systems, attributing such complexity to the workings of natural 
selection.  They have traditionally argued that since living things 
and machines are of two inherently different categories, Paley's 
analogy is not valid.  Thus they ignore the counter-intuitive nature 
of evolution.  Strictly speaking, they are right!  The analogy is not 
precise!
   
Things are changing today, however, for the more science digs into the 
structure of living systems, the more the "machine" analogy seems 
appropriate.  When the workings of life were poorly known, science 
could rightly profess bewilderment, and claim that life is different.  
But now we can see something of how life works (not how it originated) 
and it bears rough resemblance to an intricate computer-driven 
machine, although far more complex.  Experts feel that science has 
only begun to understand the machine-like workings of a cell.
   
The analogy has been validated.  Life is something like an amazingly 
well-designed machine, but much more complex than those designed by 
humans.  Such evidence of design speaks eloquently for a Designer, and 
those who choose to disbelieve are still "without excuse" (Romans 
1:20).

../