# Origin of the 'pocketwatch in the desert':: eyeball analogy **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 21, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568 "2005-12-21T02:36:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/1 "2005-12-21T02:36:37Z")
I’ve been following the brouhaha around the ‘intellegent’ design thing, and recall that in the old intro to philosophy class ca 1990 when we were going over the famous theological arguments that we covered this whole issue in the “you’re walking through the desert and come upon a pocketwatch. You assume it has a maker. Now, considering the complexity of the human eyeball etc etc” analogy. Now, aside from trying to decide whether pocketwatches hump or have millions of years to develop and that non-working pocketwatch designs don’t appear, etc, who first made this argument? Was it in something we read or was it just a standard chestnut the professor repeated? It doesn’t sound like Bp Berkeley to me-- it has to be older than that. . . anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/2 "2005-12-21T03:01:26Z")
[http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/paley.htm](http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/paley.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/3 "2005-12-21T03:35:51Z")
Except that the eye doesn’t seem to be referenced in that document. By the way, it’s not a good analogy, in that an “incomplete” eye can still have benefits to the organism. There are organisms on Earth currently with light-sensitive spots, for instance. Eyes can still produce vision when missing parts - for instance, you can see without the lens. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/4 "2005-12-21T04:00:43Z")
The analogy didn’t originally have anything to do with Intelligent Design. It was an argument for the intelligent creation of the _universe_. The jist (sp?) of the argument is that thinking that the universe, with its complex and orderly physical structures, might have been created by random chance is akin to finding a pocketwatch in the desert and thinking that it formed there naturally. The pocketwatch analogy is one of the standard examples of the philosophy of Natural Theology. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/5 "2005-12-21T04:27:54Z")
William Paley’s argument is probably the most well known, but I think the analogy predates Paley. In 1664, [Robert Hooke](http://gutenberg.elib.com/gutenberg/1/5/4/9/15491/15491-h/15491-h.htm) wrote: > [@](#): > > And indeed, so various, and seemingly irregular are the generations or productions of Insects, that he that shall carefully and diligently observe the several methods of Nature therein, will have infinitely cause further to admire the wisdom and providence of the Creator; for not onely the same kind of creature may be produc’d from several kinds of ways, but the very same creature may produce several kinds: For, as divers Watches may be made out of several materials, which may yet have all the same appearance, and move after the same manner, that is, shew the hour equally true, the one as the other, and out of the same kind of matter, like Watches, may be wrought differing ways; and, as one and the same Watch may, by being diversly agitated, or mov’d, by this or that agent, or after this or that manner, produce a quite contrary effect: So may it be with these most curious Engines of Insect’s bodies; the All-wise God of Nature, may have so ordered and disposed the little Automatons, that when nourished, acted, or enlivened by this cause, they produce one kind of effect, or animate shape, when by another they act quite another way, and another Animal is produc’d. So may he so order several materials, as to make them, by several kinds of methods, produce similar Automatons. It’s a natural analogy, since complex mechanical devices were pretty much synonymous with timekeeping for centuries. (Consider that “clockwork” referred to the motivating mechanism of any mechanical device, horological or not.) Of course people are going to make analogies with mechanical contrivances when talking about a Creator – clockwork has the most isomorphism with life. It has the appearance of self-motivation, unlike any other type of artifact. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if there are much older examples of the analogy. ---
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/6 "2005-12-21T04:37:40Z")
Hooray for smart people. Thanks for the leads. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/7 "2005-12-21T04:44:53Z")
If watches don’t evolve, then why weren’t people wearing Patek Pilippes or Casio digitals in the 16th Century? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/8 "2005-12-21T05:07:58Z")
Hopefully I can ask this without taking the discussion out of the realm of factual answers: Does anyone take the “blind watchmaker” arguement seriously any more? I mean, is this still commonly used by scholarly proponents of intelligent design? I’m asking because I don’t understand how the argument is convincing to anyone. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the “blind watchmaker” argument. It seems like it’s just “If something is sufficiently complex, we tend to see this as evidence of design. Thus, complexity is evidence of design.” Isn’t this an obvious fallacy? ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/9 "2005-12-21T05:22:51Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > … “If something is sufficiently complex, we tend to see this as evidence of design. Thus, complexity is evidence of design.” Isn’t this an obvious fallacy? Yes, begging the question. And yes, the blind watchmaker bit is frequently quoted as proof of ID. As is: “intelligence cannot have arisen spontaneously because it’s too complex, therefore it must have been created by a previous intelligence,” which is a more complex example of the same fallacy (as well as being flawed as an inductive proof because it lacks a base condition). I’m going to claim that this is about as far as this can get discussed without being in GD territory. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/10 "2005-12-21T05:23:04Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Hopefully I can ask this without taking the discussion out of the realm of factual answers: > Does anyone take the “blind watchmaker” arguement seriously any more? I mean, is this still commonly used by scholarly proponents of intelligent design? > > I’m asking because I don’t understand how the argument is convincing to anyone. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the “blind watchmaker” argument. It seems like it’s just “If something is sufficiently complex, we tend to see this as evidence of design. Thus, complexity is evidence of design.” Isn’t this an obvious fallacy? I think it is. In fact, increased simplicity is more often a sign of more advanced design. However, mere complexity isn’t the ID argument. The argument is that a structure couldn’t have been built up step by step because if any part of it is missing it doesn’t work. It isn’t complexity _per se_ but rather _irreducible_ complexity that is their watchword. By “irreducible” they mean that they can’t think of any way the feature would have any value at all in a simpler form. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/11 "2005-12-21T05:23:40Z")
Or, in case the last part isn’t factual enough, let me rephrase: If this is still put forward as a serious argument for intelligent design, and if my condensation of that argument represents it accurately, then: (1) This argument seems to assume that our tendency to see complex things as designed is _correct_. How do its proponents respond to the suggestion that perhaps we’re just _wrong_ when we make the leap from complexity to design? (2) I didn’t really mention this above, but it seems to me that we only assume the watch is designed because it resembles things we _know_ are designed (even if we’d never seen that particular kind of watch before, we’ve seen watches, or at least things made of metal with gears inside.) How do proponents of this argument respond to the claim that it’s not the _complexity_ of the watch that makes us think it’s designed, but rather its resemblance to things we _know_ are designed. Sorry if it seems like I’m trying to turn this into a great debate. I’m trying to couch these as factual questions, e.g. “Do the proponents of intelligent design still rely on this argument? Is my understanding of the argument correct? How do they respond to these two criticisms (which I assume are fairly common)?” If a mod tells me this is out of bounds for this forum, I’ll drop it. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/12 "2005-12-21T05:26:13Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > If watches don’t evolve, then why weren’t people wearing Patek Pilippes or Casio digitals in the 16th Century? How do you know they weren’t? We all know that carbon dating is a crock and the uneven deposition of sediment means you can’t rely on strata to determine the age of a fossil - in this case, possibly a fossil [Fossil](http://www.fossil.com/). It’s very convenient that the same scientists who make outlandish claims about the evolution of timepieces are the ones who decide what “evidence” to share regarding their history. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/13 "2005-12-21T05:28:45Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I think it is. In fact, increased simplicity is more often a sign of more advanced design. > > However, mere complexity isn’t the ID argument. The argument is that a structure couldn’t have been built up step by step because if any part of it is missing it doesn’t work. It isn’t complexity _per se_ but rather _irreducible_ complexity that is their watchword. > > By “irreducible” they mean that they can’t think of any way the feature would have any value at all in a simpler form. Right, I know about irreducible complexity, I just thought maybe the blind watchmaker argument (which doesn’t make any claim of irreducibility, does it?) was _another_ of the ID arguments. I don’t buy into “irreducible complexity” either, but it’s easier for me to see how _someone_ might find it convincing. The main problem I see is how can something possibly be _shown_ to be irreducibly complex? But that’s probably not a General Question. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/14 "2005-12-21T05:48:24Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Does anyone take the “blind watchmaker” arguement seriously any more? I mean, is this still commonly used by scholarly proponents of intelligent design? Yes. Attempts to update the analogy by non-scholarly proponents of intelligent design (such as Kirk Cameron’s celebrated “Can of Pepsi → Banana” argument) have so far failed to prove more persuasive than the old standby. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/15 "2005-12-21T06:28:26Z")
Hm. Maybe if watches had DNA and reproduced themselves, it would be a better analogy. As it stands, it ain’t even apples and oranges; it’s apples and toothbrushes. Or capacitors. Or hairnets. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/16 "2005-12-21T13:22:55Z")
> [@Ferret Herder](#): > > Except that the eye doesn’t seem to be referenced in that document. It’s not in the extract **Blake** linked to - the full text of _Natural Theology_ can be found [here](http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=HTML&rgn=TEI.2&byte=53049319) - but the eye was regarded by Paley as his best example and he deploys it immediately after introducing the watch analogy. Thus Chapter I describes that thought experiment, Chapter II expands upon it and then Chapter III is straight into his long discussion of eyes and telescopes. When he sums up the basic argument of the book in Chapter VI, it’s as follows: > [@](#): > > WERE there no example in the world, of contrivance, except that of the _eye_, it would be alone sufficient to support the conclusion which we draw from it, as to the necessity of an intelligent Creator. It could never be got rid of; because it could not be accounted for by any other supposition, which did not contradict all the principles we possess of knowledge; the principles, according to which, things do, as often as they can be brought to the test of experience, turn out to be true or false. Its coats and humours, constructed, as the lenses of a telescope are constructed, for the refraction of rays of light to a point, which forms the proper action of the organ; the provision in its muscular tendons for turning its pupil to the object, similar to that which is given to the telescope by screws, and upon which power of direction in the eye, the exercise of its office as an optical instrument depends; the further provision for its defence, for its constant lubricity and moisture, which we see in its socket and its lids, in its gland for the secretion of the matter of tears, its outlet or communication with the nose for carrying off the liquid after the eye is washed with it; these provisions compose altogether an apparatus, a system of parts, a preparation of means, so manifest in their design, so exquisite in their contrivance, so successful in their issue, so precious, and so infinitely beneficial in their use, as, in my opinion, to bear down all doubt that can be raised upon the subject. And what I wish, under the title of the present chapter, to observe is, that if other parts of nature were inaccessible to our inquiries, or even if other parts of nature presented nothing to our examination but disorder and confusion, the validity of this example would remain the same. If there were but one watch in the world, it would not be less certain that it had a maker. For Paley, the eye sufficied as his “one watch”. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/17 "2005-12-21T15:30:26Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > William Paley’s argument is probably the most well known, but I think the analogy predates Paley. > > In 1664, [Robert Hooke](http://gutenberg.elib.com/gutenberg/1/5/4/9/15491/15491-h/15491-h.htm) wrote… > > It’s a natural analogy, since complex mechanical devices were pretty much synonymous with timekeeping for centuries. (Consider that “clockwork” referred to the motivating mechanism of any mechanical device, horological or not.) > > Of course people are going to make analogies with mechanical contrivances when talking about a Creator – clockwork has the most isomorphism with life. It has the appearance of self-motivation, unlike any other type of artifact. > > It wouldn’t surprise me at all if there are much older examples of the analogy. The comparison of living organisms to clocks or watches was indeed not new - Descartes had already famously compared animals to clocks, although, of course, he did so in order to deny that such a simple comparison could be true for humans. But comparing living organisms to clocks or even comparing the Creator to a clockmaker is not quite the same as saying that life must have a Creator in the same way that a clock must have a clockmaker. It is sometimes said that Paley had been anticipated by William Derham in his book, _The Artificial Clock-maker_ (1696). Well, sort of. What Derham had actually done was merely to gloss the earlier argument made by Cicero in his [_De natura deorum_](http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Cicero0070/NatureOfGods/HTMLs/0040_Pt03_Book2.html#toc_lf040.label.161). > [@](#): > > _Now of all the things which are administered by nature the universe is, so to speak, the originator, begetter, parent, rearer, and supporter, and it cherishes and contains them as members and parts of itself. But if the parts of the universe are administered by nature, the same must be the case with the universe itself; at any rate there is nothing in the administration of it which can be found fault with, for the best that could have been produced from the elements which there were has been produced. If that is denied, then let some one show that better could have been produced. But no one ever will show this, and whoever wishes to amend anything will either make it worse, or will be regretting the absence of that which could not have been attained. But if all the parts of the universe have been so ordered that they could not have been better adapted for use, or more beautiful as regards appearance, let us see whether they are the work of chance, or whether their arrangement is one in which they could not possibly have been combined except by the guidance of consciousness and the divine providence. If, then, the things achieved by nature are more excellent than those achieved by art, and if art produces nothing without making use of intelligence, nature also ought not to be considered destitute of intelligence. If at the sight of a statue or painted picture you know that art has been employed, and from the distant view of the course of a ship feel sure that it is made to move by art and intelligence, and if you understand on looking at a horologe, whether one marked out with lines, or working by means of water, that the hours are indicated by art and not by chance, with what possible consistency can you suppose that the universe which contains these same products of art, and their constructors, and all things, is destitute of forethought and intelligence? Why, if any one were to carry into Scythia or Britain the globe which our friend Posidonius has lately constructed, each one of the revolutions of which brings about the same movement in the sun and moon and five wandering stars as is brought about each day and night in the heavens, no one in those barbarous countries would doubt that that globe was the work of intelligence._ The thing is that Derham wasn’t making a theological point when he discussed this passage. He merely mentioned it as evidence for a knowledge of clockwork in the ancient world in the context of his brief discussion of the technological precursors of modern clocks. But he did make it clear that he agreed with Cicero and, as _The Artificial Clock-maker_ is really a manual on clockmaking, it would have been an obvious step for his original readers to think of the argument in terms of clocks and watches. ---
**Author:** ![sciguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@sciguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciguy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-the-pocketwatch-in-the-desert-eyeball-analogy/336568/18 "2005-12-21T18:17:41Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Hopefully I can ask this without taking the discussion out of the realm of factual answers: > Does anyone take the “blind watchmaker” arguement seriously any more? I mean, is this still commonly used by scholarly proponents of intelligent design? As a nitpick, the concept of a “blind watchmaker” isn’t used for ID; it’s the title of a book by Richard Dawkins, a heavy proponent for evolutionary theories. {it’s been a while since I read the book, so I may misremember some of the details} He basically laid out that the process of evolution is at best a “blind” watchmaker: making tweaks to existing designs with no fore-thought as to what the eventual result will be. The tweaks are solely a local reaction to the current environment (what works, what leads to reproduction before death, etc) without an overall plan. It’s this lack of planning that makes it “blind”.