Re: Randomness from full disclosure--Paley's watch notoriginal

Having recently done something on the Scopes trial, the person involved whom
I am closest to is - guess who- Williams Jennings Bryan!!

For the following reasons, a Christian with a high view of scripture, a
convinced Old Earther, accepted evolution throughout the geological
timescale and opposed to eugenics.

I would not want to identify myself with eugenicists Christian or otherwise,
so Bryan's the best!

On Paley I tend to agree with Ted and also reckon Paley is a descendant of
the 17th century types, possibly more general than Boyle.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <e-lists@blinne.org>; <asa@calvin.edu>;
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Randomness from full disclosure--Paley's watch notoriginal

>>> Rich Blinne <e-lists@blinne.org> 01/28/04 20:15 PM >>>wrote:
We need to go back to the arguments concerning theistic proofs in late
18th and early 19th Centuries. David Hume wanted to deny causality
because of its link to the so-called teleological and cosmological
proofs for the existence of God. William Paley picked up on this in his
1802 work, Natural Theology. This is the origin of the now-famous watch
analogy.

Ted writes: These final two sentences are "common knowledge," but a few
years ago I found evidence that strongly suggests this is wrong. I have not
published this evidence as yet, although I did mention it in a paper I gave
at a conference on ID a few years ago, a paper that I might perhaps publish
in PSCF. True enough, Paley is famous for using the analogy of the watch
found lying on the landscape. But almost certainly he took it from
someplace else that we don't yet know about, someplace more than a century
older. Consider this passage from Boyle's unpublished manuscripts:

There is not the same difficulty to be urg'd against such a Beliefe of the
existence of a Deity, as serves to require and warrant our worshiping and
obeying him; that there is to be urg'd against some abstruse points
relateing to the Theory of the Divine Essence and Attributes. For to know
there is a God that has made the world, it may suffice to know, that the
world, which is admirably fram'd and contriv'd, cannot have made it selfe;
or been the Product of blind Chance: and therefore must have been made by
another: who haveing Impress'd such conspicuous Characters of Wisdom, Power,
and Goodnes on his Workes; warrants us to conclude that the supreame cause
of such effects is both Wise, Potent, and Good, and as such, deserves our
Thankes and Adoration; thô there may be many things in his most singular
nature and Attributes, which we cannot clearly conceive. As if an Indian or
Chinois, should have found a Watch cast on shore in some Trunke or Casket of
some shipwrackt European vessel; by observing the motions and figure of it,
he would quickly conclude that 'twas made by some intelligent & skillfull
Being; thô he would not understand why the parts were made just of such a
number, such shapes, and such sizes, & put together after that determinate
manner; nor how the whole Engine, whose Springe lyes conceal'd in the
Barrell, is made to move so regularly; Thus if a Country fellow light on a
Letter whereof the greatest part is written in Cypher, he will conclude that
'twas some rationall Creature that writt it; thô there by diverse words and
perhaps clauses, in it, of which he perceives he can give himselfe no
account.

Thus, Paley's watch rested in Boyle's pocket. Since this passage was not
published by Boyle, and I am not aware of a published passage similar to
this one (it's possible that it exists among the 2.8 million words Boyle
published, my memory is not infallible), we cannot assume a direct influence
on Paley. But the remarkable similarity is clear enough (we might call this
evidence for "intelligent design", it's non-random and highly specified) to
assume that other authors were using this analogy long before Paley. We
just don't yet know exactly who they were.

ted
Received on Thu Jan 29 13:49:49 2004