ICR:Did a Watchmaker make the watch?  By John D. Morris, Ph.D.

   In the early 1880's, William Paley published a carefully argued
paper entitled, "Natural Theology," which developed a convincing case
for the necessity of a Designer to produce the intricate design we see
in living systems.

   He referred to human machines such as a watch, claiming we would
never conclude, upon discovery of a watch, that it was the result of
natural processes such as wind and rain. By observing the order of the
organism, the purpose of each part, and the interdependence of the
parts, one would never conclude that it happened by chance.

   This, I think, is a key Biblical argument for creation. In a strict
sense, it is not a scientific argument, but it is an intuitive
argument. In the debates in which I have participated, I always call
attention to the design in living things. Perhaps the best example is a
"simple," single-celled organism. Although the simplest of all
organisms, such a protozoan is very complex, comprised of scores of
functioning parts, each performing a specific function and all working
together for the good of the whole. Remove any one of these functioning
parts, and the whole organism dies. There are, by some estimates, tens
of thousands of enzyme reactions occurring within each cell, all
necessary right from the start. Of course, almost all of this
information comes from the wondrous DNA code, the precise arrangement
of genes which directs all growth and function. Furthermore, each gene,
each organelle, each aspect of the cell is made up of complex protein
molecules--specifically arranged chains of amino acids precisely placed
for a particular purpose.

   To propose that a living, replicating cell arose without design from
non-living matter is easily the weakest point of evolution theory--so
weak that many famous scientists, who have worked for years to find a
plausible way it might have happened (like Nobel-Prize-winning
geneticist, Dr. Francis Crick), have concluded that life evolved
somewhere out in space where conditions are different from those here
on Earth, because it evidently could not happen here.

   Today's evolutionists ignore Paley's argument for design in living
systems, attributing such complexity to the workings of natural
selection. They have traditionally argued that since living things and
machines are of two inherently different categories, Paley's analogy is
not valid. Thus they ignore the counter-intuitive nature of evolution.
Strictly speaking, they are right! The analogy is not precise!

   Things are changing today, however, for the more science digs into
the structure of living systems, the more the "machine" analogy seems
appropriate. When the workings of life were poorly known, science could
rightly profess bewilderment, and claim that life is different. But now
we can see something of how life works (not how it originated) and it
bears rough resemblance to an intricate computer-driven machine,
although far more complex. Experts feel that science has only begun to
understand the machine-like workings of a cell.

   The analogy has been validated. Life is something like an amazingly
well-designed machine, but much more complex than those designed by
humans. Such evidence of design speaks eloquently for a Designer, and
those who choose to disbelieve are still "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
