Talk:Watchmaker analogy/Archives/2023/December

December 2023
The opening sentence seems to me evidently wrong : Paley precedes intelligent design by 200 years (we cite 1980s as start of intelligent design) so he can't have framed his argument in its defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfcarroll (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence does not say Paley wrote it supporting the current "intelligent design" theory. The "argument from design" is very old and refers to arguments for the existence of God. See Teleological argument. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead
The opening sentence of the article describes a several hundred year old analogy and philosophical argument, whose best known form was published by a British minister in 1802, solely in terms of a recent American use of it which is not mentioned in the article until the final section. This is confusing — see the above question.


 * The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument used to argue for the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design.

I propose to revert to an earlier version of the first sentence and following, and move the recent intelligent design material to the last paragraph of the lead to correspond to its position in the article.


 * The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument for the existence of God which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer.

This puts the defining characteristic, "design implies a designer", back into the first sentence. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to me to move this definition back into the first sentence. But, I don't think the intelligent design part should be relegated to the final paragraph of the lead. The topic of intelligent design is the main way the reader is likely to encounter the watchmaker analogy today; I think this common touchpoint should stay within the first paragraph. Jno.skinner (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that readers will be coming here for that reason, and I now feel the first paragraph should should address it. But we shouldn't be fighting American culture wars in the leads of articles, or using the jargon of the wars. It is better show why it is a problem rather than just labeling certain users of it as doing pseudoscience. I think we should start with:
 * The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer. It was stated by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. In spite of advances in science that show how the universe and life evolves, Christian fundamentalists use this analogy from the 18th century in their opposition to the teaching of evolutionary biology.
 * This shows why it is an unreasonable argument for that purpose, and editors can't argue it should be removed as "very charged and biased language". StarryGrandma (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording "design implies" implies there is design, which is questionable. The claim here is not "there must be designer" based on the fact "there is design". "There is design" is part of the claim. We should not put the pseudoscientific views in Wikipedia voice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I am as confused as the gentleman in the comment above. First, the sentence says, in Wikipedia voice, that the analogy states "design implies a designer", not us. Second, as an astrophysicist I can state that our wonderfully self-assembling universe does have a design. It is called physical law. The enormous sums of money spent on projects such as the Large Hadron Collider and the James Webb Space Telescope testify to the importance we place on pinning down the details of that design. Third, there is nothing pseudoscientific about the analogy itself. It is a philosophical argument, not an attempt to do the current pseudoscientific creation science. When Paley, a liberal theologian, wrote his version, it was in line with the scientific thought of the day as this article points out. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be thinking of "design" in terms of special creation which holds that each thing on earth was individually designed by God. That was taken for granted by Paley. He was writing before Darwin, before even atoms were known, and the workings of the universe, even of biology, were expected to be a kind of clockwork as in the way Newton's laws explained the workings of the solar system. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , what are you doing using your rollback rights to remove my proposal? Do you have something to add to this conversation? StarryGrandma (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Please accept my apologies. I’m sorry to have inconvenienced you. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)