If the organized complexity that we find in a watch makes it seem somewhat improbable that it would have arrived by chance, then how much greater the complexity and improbability of a machine that makes watches arriving by chance.
And how much greater still the complexity and hence improbability of a machine that makes machines that make watches.
And how much greater still the complexity and improbability of a machine that makes machines that make machines that make watches.
Add to this, the following amazing feature: each of these machines would look and function like a simple watch (i.e., of a watch that does not make other watches).
Talk of a mere watchmaker--blind or not--is simplistic. To do justice to the claim, one would have to speak of of a Maker of makers of watchmakers (or perhaps, if one does not get lost, a Maker of watches that are also makers of watches that are also watchmakers).
Once we consider the mechanics involved, how much less plausible does it seem that this maker would be blind!
And how much greater still the complexity and hence improbability of a machine that makes machines that make watches.
And how much greater still the complexity and improbability of a machine that makes machines that make machines that make watches.
Add to this, the following amazing feature: each of these machines would look and function like a simple watch (i.e., of a watch that does not make other watches).
Talk of a mere watchmaker--blind or not--is simplistic. To do justice to the claim, one would have to speak of of a Maker of makers of watchmakers (or perhaps, if one does not get lost, a Maker of watches that are also makers of watches that are also watchmakers).
Once we consider the mechanics involved, how much less plausible does it seem that this maker would be blind!
Comments