William Paley became famous for his teleological watchmaker argument in the 19^th century. According to Paley, if we image we are walking along a beach and we come across a watch. We know that chance cannot make something very complicated and intricate as the watch. No over lapping waves on shore could have created anything like it. Therefore, we must conclude that someone made the watch with skill and care. Now when we consider the universe, we realize that the cosmos is much more complicated than a watch. Thus, it is less likely that chance created the universe. This observation means that there must be an equivalent to the watchmaker such as a Divine Creator and Designer God.

Skeptics such as David Hume challenge Paley’s watchmaker argument by saying we don’t know what made the universe. We know what sort of things watches are and where they came from; therefore, of course watches point to a watchmaker. However, we have no idea what sorts of things create universes. Experience is silent on that history. However, Hume’s argument is decorated with false assumptions. He believes that human beings are not capable of identifying non-human intelligent design. Hume’s argument ignores the fact that observation and experimentation demonstrates that the universe requires a maker because the cosmos is decorated with information, complexity, predictability, and organization.  Modern science has demonstrated that Hume’s argument is simply irrational.

Modern skeptics such as Richard Dwakins believe that Darwinism has overthrown Paley’s watchmaker argument. He argues that Darwin’s evolution theory explains how complex life evolved without a divine engineer. However, this is simply a false assumption because Darwinism cannot explain the origin of information, the origin of life, and transformation of life. Because life is a biochemical self-replicating information system, life could only have originated from Intelligent Design. The laws of nature cannot create life. Natural selection and genetic mutations cannot create new genetic information because that process only facilitates plant and animal variation. Dr. Jonathan Wells and Dr. Michael Behe and many other intelligent design theorists have all demonstrated the impossibility of Darwinism. Today, William Paley’s argument has been restored back to its rational and logical place because of the science of intelligent design.

Intelligent design theory seeks to discovery complex objects that are specified to some pattern. This is the design arguments essence, and we can best detect design when we can exclude some rival hypothesis, resembling Darwinian evolution. Darwinism no longer triumphs ov

er modern design arguments. Darwinism fails to explain the evolution of irreducible complex biological systems naturally and this fact represents the collapse of Darwinism temporary triumph over Paley, and the modern intelligent design argument. While Hume argued that there is insufficient analogy between biological design and human design, his outdated objection cannot withstand Behe and Dembski’s rigorous observations and quantifications for the information produced by an intelligent agent.

 RELATED SOURCES: The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Charles Thaxton in 1984. A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton in 1986. Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson in 1991. Creation Hypothesis, Dean Kenyon in 1994. Reason in the Balance, Phillip Johnson in 1995. Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe in 1996. The Design Inference, William Dembski in 1999. Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells in 2000. The Design Revolution, William Dembski in 2004.