Another answer to the Watch maker riddle
August 10, 2022
Here is a brief introduction to the famous watch maker riddle and a different explanation for it.
The watchmaker analogy
In Richard Dawkins's book, The Blind Watchmaker, he relates the Watchmaker analogy which was originally posed by William Paley. It goes like this - if I find a watch in the grass, looking at its complicated mechanisms, I know it was created by someone and didn't just come about on its own. Similarly if I find a beetle in the grass which is equally complicated or see an eye, I can only conclude that the beetle and the eye also has a creator. And that is my proof of the creator God.
It was a convincing argument for its day. Seemingly it is still a convincing argument today. Richard Dawkins does a wonderful job of deconstructing the argument and demonstrating why the process of natural selection would lead to formation of complex organs and organisms like an eye and a beetle.
An improved analogy
If William Paley were alive today, he could have chosen an even better example - a digital camera. It is as complex as a watch and it even has the same function as the eye. So, if a digital camera must be invented and manufactured artificially (by human creators), surely an eye cannot just come about on its own.
In fact, he could have gone even further. A digital camera (like a watch) has a clear purpose. It is taking pictures. And similarly, natural things like a beetle and an eye also has purpose - keeping the organism alive and help them multiply. An artificial object and a living object are both complicated as well as endowed with a purpose. Can we then conclude, even more emphatically, that both of them have creators?
If we dig deeper into the fact that both, an artificially created object and a living being have complex mechanisms within them and both have a purpose (teleonomy), we can find that there are other similarities. For example, both require energy. The digital camera gets it from its batteries and the living organisms get theirs from food; the digital camera go through wear & tear and living organisms go through ageing & death.
Analogy stretched
But there are also big differences - a beetle or an eye is constructed from cells. Where as the camera or the watch is not. The materials from which they are made are different - the living things is made of carbon molecules and water; where as the camera is made of metal & plastic and in fact will get destroyed by water. More importantly, the living thing can make copies of itself which the camera can certainly not (not yet with the current technology at least). So, even though both the artefact and the living thing are complicated mechanisms we cannot conclude that everything about them is same.
Analogy breaks down
So, if everything about them is not the same, and in fact there are quite stark differences, can we really conclude that both should have a creator? Is it possible that despite some similarities, they differ on the matter of how they got created?
That answers William Paley's riddle. However, the explanation is still feels a little incomplete. We are left wondering why the artifact and the living being are still so similar? Granted the living thing doesn't have a creator but then why are they so similar to an artificially created object?
A further insight
It turns out that we are looking at the question in the wrong way. That realisation came to me while reading the book Chance and Necessity by Jacques Monod. An artificial object has a purpose because it was made by humans to fulfil some need. That need could be any trivial human need like to make oneself happy, or it could be an important need like being able to extend ones live. The ultimate purpose, after going through all the chains of whys, is usually to live longer and pass on our genes. A living thing has the same purpose - to live longer and pass on our genes. We as living things make artifacts which basically fulfils the same purpose we have as living things. So, it is not surprising that there is a purpose in the artifact. Simply because there is a purpose in us and all living beings. And in fact the two purposes - in the artificial things we create and the purpose of us being alive, are exactly the same.
In Richard Dawkins's book, The Blind Watchmaker, he relates the Watchmaker analogy which was originally posed by William Paley. It goes like this - if I find a watch in the grass, looking at its complicated mechanisms, I know it was created by someone and didn't just come about on its own. Similarly if I find a beetle in the grass which is equally complicated or see an eye, I can only conclude that the beetle and the eye also has a creator. And that is my proof of the creator God.
It was a convincing argument for its day. Seemingly it is still a convincing argument today. Richard Dawkins does a wonderful job of deconstructing the argument and demonstrating why the process of natural selection would lead to formation of complex organs and organisms like an eye and a beetle.
An improved analogy
If William Paley were alive today, he could have chosen an even better example - a digital camera. It is as complex as a watch and it even has the same function as the eye. So, if a digital camera must be invented and manufactured artificially (by human creators), surely an eye cannot just come about on its own.
In fact, he could have gone even further. A digital camera (like a watch) has a clear purpose. It is taking pictures. And similarly, natural things like a beetle and an eye also has purpose - keeping the organism alive and help them multiply. An artificial object and a living object are both complicated as well as endowed with a purpose. Can we then conclude, even more emphatically, that both of them have creators?
If we dig deeper into the fact that both, an artificially created object and a living being have complex mechanisms within them and both have a purpose (teleonomy), we can find that there are other similarities. For example, both require energy. The digital camera gets it from its batteries and the living organisms get theirs from food; the digital camera go through wear & tear and living organisms go through ageing & death.
Analogy stretched
But there are also big differences - a beetle or an eye is constructed from cells. Where as the camera or the watch is not. The materials from which they are made are different - the living things is made of carbon molecules and water; where as the camera is made of metal & plastic and in fact will get destroyed by water. More importantly, the living thing can make copies of itself which the camera can certainly not (not yet with the current technology at least). So, even though both the artefact and the living thing are complicated mechanisms we cannot conclude that everything about them is same.
Analogy breaks down
So, if everything about them is not the same, and in fact there are quite stark differences, can we really conclude that both should have a creator? Is it possible that despite some similarities, they differ on the matter of how they got created?
That answers William Paley's riddle. However, the explanation is still feels a little incomplete. We are left wondering why the artifact and the living being are still so similar? Granted the living thing doesn't have a creator but then why are they so similar to an artificially created object?
A further insight
It turns out that we are looking at the question in the wrong way. That realisation came to me while reading the book Chance and Necessity by Jacques Monod. An artificial object has a purpose because it was made by humans to fulfil some need. That need could be any trivial human need like to make oneself happy, or it could be an important need like being able to extend ones live. The ultimate purpose, after going through all the chains of whys, is usually to live longer and pass on our genes. A living thing has the same purpose - to live longer and pass on our genes. We as living things make artifacts which basically fulfils the same purpose we have as living things. So, it is not surprising that there is a purpose in the artifact. Simply because there is a purpose in us and all living beings. And in fact the two purposes - in the artificial things we create and the purpose of us being alive, are exactly the same.