Richard Dawkins’ Assessment on William Paley’s “design” Argument

937 Words2 Pages

William Paley, who wrote The Watch and the Watchmaker, believed that anything organized for a function needed a special explanation. He concluded that these things must have been designed by some sort of designer and hence, the “design” argument was established. Paley used the example of a watchmaker as an analogy exemplifying a designer. “We think it is inevitable that the watch must have had a maker.” (Paley : 57) This specific example is an analogy to the universe and God, which allows us to further question: if the watch had a watchmaker, what kind of maker does nature and humanity have? Is God our creator? Paley also argued that “there existed in things a principle of order”, which made the parts of a watch into their present form and situation. (Paley : 58) He believed his argument was the best available in 1802 and refused to believe in other lesser alternatives because they were incredulous and a mere chance of being the truth.
In 1986, Richard Dawkins suggested that Paley's "design" argument might have been the best explanation in the 19th century for the existence of God and the intelligent design of the universe in his novel The Blind Watchmaker. Although Paley succeeded in making his argument, Dawkins argued that it had one major defect; the explanation itself. “Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.” (Dawkins : 606) Paley gave the traditional religious answer to who our designer is: God.
In Dawkins’ novel, he aims to prove how the explanation is not a religious answer but a biological and cumulative natural selection. According to Dawkins, the theory of Darwinism is what changed the mystery of our...

... middle of paper ...

...h events on radically different timescales from those that characterize evolutionary change.” (Dawkins : 605) Even if Darwinism is a theory of slow cumulative processes, there are billions of fossils that date to millions of years ago. None of these include a structure with cumulative natural selection gradually happening to it in the process of evolving. According to Darwin, evolution and cumulative natural process is in a continual state of motion. If this is true, one might constantly wonder why we haven’t seen it or why fossil records aren’t found with examples of structures leading from the less evolved to more evolved. Therefore, until this day, we still wonder if Dawkin or Paley’s “design” theory is the proof for our existence. We may never know the truth, but at least we are exposed to these complex arguments of our existence that let us wonder continuously.

Open Document