User talk:TPMoyer

I have reverted your recent modifications to this article. Here's why:

It is -- as a matter of historical fact -- incorrect to place very much emphasis on the argument's assumption of monotheism. The real issue with the watchmaker argument, and the point that historically has received the most attention from  proponents and critics alike, is whether it is possible to recognize the marks  of intelligent design, what those marks are, and whether they can be found in  the natural world. Whether the intelligent design is the product of a single intelligent being, or the product of a group of intelligent beings working  together, say, as a committee, is peripheral to the argument. The Intelligent Design movement, for instance, emphasizes that it makes no conjectures about the  nature of the intelligent designer.

However, it is indeed historically true that the classic statement of the watchmaker argument by Paley assumes monotheism and is presented in support of  the proposition that the Christian God created the universe. And it is philosophically correct to point out -- as you do -- that the assumption of  monotheism is unsupported and a weak point in the argument. May I suggest that the place in the article to make these points is in the section titled  "Does not prove the existence of God". Note the last paragraph of that section in the current version.

May I also suggest that you spell-check your text before adding it? The following text ... "The assumption of a single watchmaker in the argument is not historicly valid. It does allow the monothiests such as Paley and those in the Intelligent Design movement to assett a single designer. If one found a watch, one would assume a multitude had contributed to it, and thus the analogy would more historicly correctly support a panthion of designers." ... contains multiple typos: historically, monotheists, assert, historically, pantheon.

Best wishes, -- StephenFerg