The Logical Atheist

If a theist finds a watch in the woods, why doesn't he presume that God made it?

The theists get it wrong when they say we can spot design in the world the same way that we spot design when we find a watch in the woods. This is a bit strange. We spot a watch in the woods precisely because it stands out against the natural background. If all was designed, the watch ought to blend in. Here's another quote from George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God : The inferential process represented in the design argument is the reverse of what actually occurs. We conclude that a watch is the result of design, not because we see "that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose," but because we know by direct experience that watches are made by men. We do not, as [William] Paley insists, infer that a watch is made-made because we perceive design in it; rather we infer that a watch is designed because we know it is man-made.... ...In order to conclude that an object was designed, we must first establish that it was manufactured. Therefore,...

When people say they see design in the universe, what they are really seeing is order, a very different thing. Order is what you should expect from a world in which A is A, which entails the corollary that what a thing does is determined by what it is. These laws of identity and causality necessarily produce order. And since to exist is to exist as something with a specific nature, no alternative to order is conceivable. The consequences of this point are significant for the God question. George H. Smith puts it well in Atheism: The Case Against God : It is a mistake to confuse "order" with "design." If there is design in nature, there must be a designer, but the same is not true of order. Order does not presuppose an orderer; it is simply entailed by the nature of existence itself.