For thousands of years, philosophers have pondered questions about the existence of

God. Great philosophers such as Descartes and Saint Thomas Aquinas have come up with
numerous ontological and cosmological arguments in an attempt to prove the existence of God.
However, British philosopher William Paley has a slightly different take on this age old question.
He created what is called a teleological argument, an argument for an intelligent creator based on
the evidence of design in the world. He entitled it The Watch and the Watch Maker due to the
comparison between a watch and the universe. His claim is that the universe is too complex and
intricate to have simply sprung into existence and, much like a watch, it must have a creator.
While William Paleys argument is perhaps more thought out and advanced then similar
assertions, it is not successful in proving its conclusion that there is an intelligent creator.
Paley introduces his argument by discussing the existence of a stone. He claims that, if
asked how the stone got there, one could reply that it had been there forever. Paley points out
that this answer is absurd, but he also points out that it would be difficult to prove the absurdity
of the claim. He goes on to discuss the existence of a watch. If someone were to find a watch
lying on the ground, they would never claim that it had been there forever because a watch has
clearly been intelligently designed, shaped, and assembled. He talks about the springs, the chain,
the types of materials used, and the intricate ways that the parts work together. The final claim in
his introduction is that, after observing the mechanism, it is clear that there must have existed at
some time or another, an artificer or artificers who formed it.
Anticipating objections to his ideas, the second part of The Watch and the Watch
Maker contains statements refuting various criticisms. First he claims that even if an individual
had no knowledge of a watch, had never known anyone who could make one, or didnt

understand how one worked, it would still be clear that the watch had a creator. Secondly, he
says that the conclusion still holds true even if the watch sometimes goes wrong or is never
completely right. Its imperfection does not mean it wasnt intelligently designed. He also states
that even though there are parts of the watch that have an unknown function or possibly no
function at all, those parts still had to be drafted and created by something. Furthermore, he
asserts it is not at all satisfactory to say that a natural principle of order randomly arranged the
device into its current state. More so, it would be impossible to tell this principle of order
from an intelligent creator. His next point is that it would be surprising to hear that the gadget
was not proof of contrivance, but only a motive to induce the mind to think so. Interestingly he
does not elaborate on this point at all, claiming only that to hear this would be surprising. Next
Paley talks about the laws of nature, claiming that the watch cannot be the result of the these
laws because a law cannot be the cause of something. It can only define how a separate agent can
act. His final point is that even though people claim that he does not have enough knowledge of
the matter to know what he is talking about, he does in fact have enough knowledge to make an
argument. The ignorance of other points does not affect his ability to reason (Burgess-Jackson).
In his conclusion, Paley claims that every indication of contrivance that exists in the
watch also exists in nature. That nature is even more intricate then a watch to a degree that
exceeds all computation. He alleges that the watch and the universe both have thought-out,
planned designs. But to truly understand how Paley argues from design to God one must
understand the premises behind his argument. His premises are as follows: The watch is
complex, the watch has a creator. The universe is complex, therefore the universe must have a
creator. Essentially Paley is making the argument by way of a comparison. He claims that if its

obvious in one case, it should be obvious in another as well. However, there are opposing views
to this teleological argument.
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher born in 1711. He is famous for his opposition to
Paleys ideas. His main problem with The Watch and the Watch Maker is that there is no way
of telling if this universe was intelligently designed. Surely the universe is not perfect and
therefore the deity that created it is not perfect either. In fact its possible to wonder if a universe
so poorly designed was actually designed at all. Another opposing view is that of Darwinism.
The idea behind Darwinism is that animals and humans are not designed but rather are changed
through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection. If this genetic mutation helps
them to survive then natural selection will assure it continues on. If it does not help them to
survive, they trait will not be passed on to future generations.
Utilizing the ideas from these opposing arguments, one comes to the conclusion that
Paleys argument is not successful. The first problem lies in his premises. Specifically, the
comparison between the watch and the universe. Paley is assuming that because these two
objects share one similarity, they must also share another. His second fallacy lies in the
complexity of the watch. He claims that its obvious that the watch was created because of its
intricacy. However the watch only appears intricate when compared to things such as trees and
rocks. Similarly, people argue that the earth must be intelligently designed because of its
amazing ecosystem and ability to sustain life. However it only appears to be designed as such
when you look at other planets that dont support life. To say that the universe is designed is
ridiculous because there is nothing to compare it to (Schwartz). With nothing to compare it to,
we have no idea whether this universe is designed or not, a point that Hume makes as well.

Regardless of the unsuccessfulness of this argument, there are still people today who
make similar claims. Overall, the ideas behind intelligent design are largely the same as they
were when Paley was discussing them. The only major difference lies in the complexity of the
contemporary arguments. Modern examples include The Argument from Irreducible
Biochemical Complexity. The basic idea is that the body contains some systems that are
irreducibly complex, meaning they can still function even when parts are removed. Supporters of
this claim argue that it would be impossible for an organism to evolve such systems. Another
major example of contemporary intelligent design is The Argument from Biological
Information. This argument focuses on the problems of generating the first living organism.
Proponents of this claim argue that it is nearly impossible for organic matter to form out of nonorganic matter (Himma). While these arguments hardly prove the existence of God, they are
certainly more evolved then The Watch and the Watchmaker.
Human kind has debated over the existence of God for millennia, and they will continue
to argue for the foreseeable future. Its one of the biggest questions that philosophers, such as
Descartes, Aristotle, and Saint Thomas Aquinas, have pondered. However, there may never be a
definitive answer, no matter how advanced arguments from either side. While Paley had a good
start, he was no where near giving a distinct answer to one of the most significant questions in
recent history. And while arguments today are more advanced then ever, there is much research
to be done before they are completely convincing. And although we may never find a true
answer, with perseverance and calm logic, we may someday find an accurate, confident
consensus.

Bibliography
Burgess-Jackson, Keith. Summary of William Paleys Natural Theology (1802), Chapters I-III.
N.p., 22 Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Himma, Kenneth. Design Arguments for the Existence of God. Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Print.
Paley, William. The Watchmaker Argument. Natural Theology. London: N.p., 1802. Print.
Schwartz, David A. The Watchmaker Analogy: A Self-Refuting Argument. Huffington Post.
N.p., 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Solomon, Robert, Kathleen Higgins, and Clancy Martin. Introducing Philosophy. Tenth Edition.
New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.