# If The Designer is a watchmaker, why doesn't He make watches?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Design\
**Created:** [August 3, 2021, 3:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051 "2021-08-03T15:00:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2021, 9:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/42 "2021-08-07T21:45:23Z")

</div>

Hi Rum  
I could only speculate but here is a swag.

The Designer left us with basic technology with both matter and its most advanced form biology. Biology contains more complex molecules than inert matter and has a stronger design detection signal based on human design detection standards. As @pnelson parody indicated, leaving complex non biological designs was not a priority and left for humans. God designed the human designer for optimizing inert matters capability.

A possible reason for this is to allow us to become self sufficient by developing technology using His basic designs. What humans can do with matter is quite impressive so far and there is a long way to go. I agree with @Michael_Okoko that we are not beyond copying biology at this point with Crispr. We may use biology more in the future as a benchmark for human designs.

> **[TOP 5 Airbus plane designs inspired by animals](https://www.aerotime.aero/24830-top-5-airbus-plane-designs-inspired-by-animals)**
>
> Airbus brands itself as an expert of biomimicry ‒ taking inspiration from nature by observing animals and trying to reapply some things they do in their engineering. While many of these projects are still in the development stage, below are five...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2021, 10:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/43 "2021-08-07T22:14:57Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> From Ewerts paper

I’m dubious of Ewert’s algorithm, and neither the algorithm nor the data are adequately explained. It doesn’t seem to me that anyone reading Ewert’s paper would be able to reproduce his work.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The Howe Venn diagram indicates separate starting points.

That’s a naked assertion unrelated to anything that came before and unsupported by any argument. Again, you have no explanation for the pattern, while I do. Therefore my ideas are superior, as science judges such things.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2021, 11:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/44 "2021-08-07T23:42:59Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Again, you have no explanation for the pattern, while I do. Therefore my ideas are superior, as science judges such things.

I agree as science supports methodological naturalism.

What the methods of science is doing in this case maybe forcing you into a potentially faulty model. IMO a model of multiple LCA’s in the case of vertebrates should be considered.

I am impressed you took the time to read the RTB book and critique it. I agree with several of your points especially about developing a more robust creation model. I hope this promotes some healthy dialog. I also appreciate @swamidass effort in supporting this type of dialog.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2021, 11:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/45 "2021-08-07T23:43:02Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The Designer left us with basic technology with both matter and its most advanced form biology.

If biology is “its most advanced form”, that is only because this “designer” did not create anything more advanced outside of biology. There is no apparent reason why this designer, if it existed, did not or could not.

Of course, if this designer does not exist, then there is nothing to be explained.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 3:55am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/46 "2021-08-08T03:55:07Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I agree as science supports methodological naturalism.

You persist in making no sense. Abandoning methodological naturalism doesn’t save your hypothesis.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> What the methods of science is doing in this case maybe forcing you into a potentially faulty model.

So you _are_ suggesting that we abandon science.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> IMO a model of multiple LCA’s in the case of vertebrates should be considered.

But you have as much as agreed that we have to abandon science in order to consider it. There is no evidence favoring multiple, independently-created ancestors for vertebrates and all sorts of evidence against that notion: fossils, morphology, DNA and protein sequences, and numerous large mutations such as indels, rearrangements, new genes, gene losses, and so on. Yet you cling to your hypothesis which you have as much as admitted is based on your interpretation of Genesis.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I agree with several of your points especially about developing a more robust creation model.

I’m sorry, but I can’t bring myself to care about your agreement, given your past ability to agree only with anything you already believed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/47 "2021-08-08T16:16:26Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> There is no apparent reason why this designer, if it existed, did not or could not.

I think this maybe best understood as ultimately a theological question in the case the Designer is God.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/48 "2021-08-08T16:16:29Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> But you have as much as agreed that we have to abandon science in order to consider it.

I am not sure this is true as we currently start with LUCA vs RNA world at the base of the tree. I don’t think science is forcing the starting point of the model.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Yet you cling to your hypothesis which you have as much as admitted is based on your interpretation of Genesis.

The alternative hypothesis is based on the Howe Venn diagram. It happens to fit conceptually with Genesis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe\_Felsenstein](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/joe_felsenstein/32/8176_2.png) [@Joe\_Felsenstein](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Joe_Felsenstein)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/49 "2021-08-08T16:16:34Z")

</div>

Perhaps this is a different issue, but: why don’t we see any use of ID arguments in chemistry and physics, aside from chemicals known to be synthesized by chemists or objects known to be constructed by humans? I suspect that this is simply a restatement of the argument of this thread but it does let the inorganic chemists and physicists off the hook while biologists bear the main burden of coping with ID arguments.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/50 "2021-08-08T16:16:35Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> What the methods of science is doing in this case maybe forcing you into a potentially faulty model.

Yet when Behe or Axe use some scientific approach based on MN to try to assail evolution, you gladly embrace their findings without considering whether their conclusions are faulty. When science seems to support ID, its good. When it doesn’t, it and MN might as well go out the window. Hypocrites.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> IMO a model of multiple LCA’s in the case of vertebrates should be considered.

That model is wrong based on available evidence drawn from disparate sources like fossils and molecules. Multiple LCA’s fits the observed pattern for viral origins better, just not so for cellular life.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 5:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/51 "2021-08-08T17:18:16Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I am not sure this is true as we currently start with LUCA vs RNA world at the base of the tree. I don’t think science is forcing the starting point of the model.

None of that is relevant to vertebrates or to anything else we’ve been talking about. (And it’s way off topic for this thread too.) You continue to post incoherent objections. Exclusively.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The alternative hypothesis is based on the Howe Venn diagram. It happens to fit conceptually with Genesis.

No, it isn’t. You grossly misunderstand the data and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. Your hypothesis fits Genesis, but that’s no coincidence, as you have formed it for just that reason.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 9:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/52 "2021-08-08T21:25:54Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I think this maybe best understood as ultimately a theological question in the case the Designer is God.

Intelligence Design activists have based an entire movement and spent millions of dollars supporting the claim it is a scientific question. I’m glad you agree that they are wrong about this. Do you think they have engaged in this because they are mistaken, or because they are lying?

> [@Joe\_Felsenstein](#):
>
> Perhaps this is a different issue, but: why don’t we see any use of ID arguments in chemistry and physics, aside from chemicals known to be synthesized by chemists or objects known to be constructed by humans? I suspect that this is simply a restatement of the argument of this thread but it does let the inorganic chemists and physicists off the hook while biologists bear the main burden of coping with ID arguments.

I don’t think that is quite the same question. The typical ID Creationist argument relies on the arrangement of molecules or larger physical objects that occurs at the levels above basic chemistry or physics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [August 8, 2021, 9:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/53 "2021-08-08T21:26:08Z")

</div>

> [@Joe\_Felsenstein](#):
>
> why don’t we see any use of ID arguments in chemistry and physics, aside from chemicals known to be synthesized by chemists or objects known to be constructed by humans?

Michael Denton has put out a book based on the properties of water. I have not read it, but unlike most ID arguments it is not based on insufficiency in nature but rather an expression of fine tuning.

> **[Wonderful! Michael Denton’s New Book, The Wonder of Water, Is Out | Evolution...](https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wonderful-michael-dentons-new-book-the-wonder-of-water-is-out/)**
>
> He shows how water’s properties are interrelated for the apparent purpose of allowing complex life to exist on our planet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 12:53am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/54 "2021-08-09T00:53:25Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Intelligence Design activists have based an entire movement and spent millions of dollars supporting the claim it is a scientific question. **I’m glad you agree that they are wrong about this**. Do you think they have engaged in this because they are mistaken, or because they are lying?

What intelligent design guys do you think have asked the question that you did? You have made an interesting argument about the overall picture of the evidence but it is not an ID argument.

ID guys are not considering the motive of the Designer as you are. The motive of the designer is for theologians.

The ID argument is **evidence** - **inference** - **design** as the cause.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Joe\_Felsenstein](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/joe_felsenstein/32/8176_2.png) [@Joe\_Felsenstein](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Joe_Felsenstein)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 2:20am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/55 "2021-08-09T02:20:08Z")

</div>

The properties of water come from the properties of hydrogen and oxygen. Those in turn come from solutions of the Schrödinger wave equation. So the properties of water cannot be tinkered with by The Designer without screwing up the whole universe as a side effect.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 2:20am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/56 "2021-08-09T02:20:17Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> ID guys are not considering the motive of the Designer as you are.

He isn’t, and in fact no design argument can work without considering the motives of the designer, since the supposed designer can do anything at all and make it look like anything else, if he likes. There can be no well-formed hypothesis of an omnipotent being without constraining his motives in some way.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The ID argument is **evidence** - **inference** - **design** as the cause.

That was nothing at all like an argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 5:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/57 "2021-08-09T05:21:29Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> He isn’t, and in fact no design argument can work without considering the motives of the designer, since the supposed designer can do anything at all and make it look like anything else, if he likes. There can be no well-formed hypothesis of an omnipotent being without constraining his motives in some way.

ID is a method for inferring design in nature.

The designer is a much more complicated discussion and separate from Behe’s argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 6:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/58 "2021-08-09T06:57:22Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> ID is a method method for inferring design in nature.

ID is a ‘method’ for “inferring design in nature” in the exact same way that dowsing is a ‘method’ for inferring the presence of subterranean water sources.

Both ‘methods’ lack anything in the way of procedural rigor, and both are _entirely lacking in scientific validity_.

It is in fact more accurate to state that ID is the _bald and unsubstantiated assertion_ that …

> … certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [[DI]](https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 3:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/59 "2021-08-09T15:28:18Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> ID guys are not considering the motive of the Designer as you are.

I am not thinking at all of “motive”. I am applying the methodology the ID guys claim is able to detect design, and finding that it in the natural world it only seems to apply to things that arose thru evolution. And since evolution provides an explanation for how things that meet the ID guys’ criteria for “design” can arise _without_ having been designed by an intelligent being, it raises serious problems for the ID guys’ claim that there is a designer responsible for things in the natural world.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 3:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/60 "2021-08-09T15:28:20Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> ID is a method for inferring design in nature.

That method, such as it is, must assume that the designer has certain goals, e.g. biological complexity, and in particular _Homo sapiens_, but lacks other goals, e.g. complex inanimate designs.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2021, 3:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051/61 "2021-08-09T15:57:05Z")

</div>

> [@Joe\_Felsenstein](#):
>
> The properties of water come from the properties of hydrogen and oxygen. Those in turn come from solutions of the Schrödinger wave equation. So the properties of water cannot be tinkered with by The Designer without screwing up the whole universe as a side effect.

And an omnipotent divine designer could of course just make special rules for every individual thing. Give water a unique and special essence that can be manipulated and adjusted at a fundamental level by the designer without affecting anything else. Same with any other entity, no reason to bother with this strangely interconnected system of interactions among simpler and more basic constituents, resulting in strongly contingent and emergent behaviors.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/if-the-designer-is-a-watchmaker-why-doesnt-he-make-watches/14051.md?page=4)