Enough with the "watchmaker" argument already!

I am so fucking sick of the "watchmaker" argument.

It goes like this: "If you see a watch, you don't think that that watch must have always been there. You assume that there was someone around to make the watch. So why don't you assume that someone must have made the Universe?"

Or something like that. I have a hard time understanding this argument because it is so full of fail. The gist of it is that because a lot of complex objects had to be assembled meticulously in order to function correctly, that must be the same for any complex object.

But there's no basis for that claim.

First of all, we can break down everything into two categories: man-made, and not man-made.

In the first category, man-made, we have objects such as:

1. Watches
2. Bread loves
3. Boeing 747's
4. Books
5. Doorknobs
6. Polyester threads
7. Electric ranges
8. Etc.
   

In the second category, non-man-made, we have everything else. Including:

1. Trees
2. Rabbits
3. Mountains (which are hugely complex, given that they often have the ability to grow crystals and whatnot)
4. Grass
5. Gold
6. Plankton
7. Stars
8. Etc.

Now, for one category - the first - we know, or can reasonably figure out where these objects came from. They were assembled from other objects by a human being (or other animal - many animals have decent tool-making and home-building skills, among other things).

But for the second category, we don't really know where these came from originally. Yes, we can make some educated guesses, but it's a mystery. Humans weren't there to see it. However, what we do know is that one of these categories things can be found in the universe with the assistance of a human agent, and one of them can without.

And that is all that we really know.

Yet people who use the "watchmaker" argument seem to think that these facts are somehow indicative of a creator. Their logic is that, since man/animal-made objects have a sentient creator, non-man/animal-made objects must also have a sentient creator. Why? There is no logical reason to infer that conclusion from the facts presented. Nowhere in the history of science is it acceptable to assume that a trait which is inherent to one set of objects is inherent to a completely separate set of objects which is missing the very property that makes that trait inherent.

Or, to try and make that legible, consider squirrels and flying squirrels. Flying squirrels, as their name implies, "fly" (or, more accurately, glide through the air). They do so through the use of skin flaps on the sides of their bodies. Regular squirrels, on the other hand, do no such thing. Therefore it would be both ridiculous and pointless to first assume that they also have skin flaps (if they don't fly, then there is no need to assume that they have a method to do so), and then make a load of assumptions based on the "fact" that regular squirrels have skin flaps.

It simply makes no sense.

The way I've framed the argument, at least to me, it seems patently obvious that this argument is absurd, full of false equivocation and so forth. So why are its proponents so fond of it?

I can answer that in one word: perspective.

Human beings, including scientists, have a tendency to view their studies through the lens of their own perspective. And most human beings, including scientists, have some amount of difficulty curtailing this behavior. Well, the perspective of most watchmaker proponents is that nearly their entire world is man-made. We live in man-made houses, use man-made appliances and man-made furniture, drive on man-made roads using man-made cars, eat man-made food - you get the picture.

So most of what we see is man-made, and ergo, by definition, has been created. So we start to see "things that we know were created" as the norm. Just as white Americans who see their culture as the norm tend to gawk at floor-level toilets and ask nonsense questions like "What do you do instead of Christmas?" when you live amidst complex objects that have been created, and especially when you learn more about how those were created, you instinctively search for a source of creation for the other complex things that you see.

It's a matter of perspective. It's also false equivocation and generally bad science.

There is one other flaw of the watchmaker argument, and again it's a problem of false equivocation. That is, people who make this argument typically conflate what we usually refer to as creation (one object being changed into something else via an outside force, which may or may not be sentient) with the universe's Creation (ostensibly, many objects popping out of nothing.)

Firstly, no human being (or other animal) has ever been able to create something out of nothing. Never, in the history of the Earth. So there is no reason at all to assume that such a feat would require an intelligent agent.

And secondly, even if you actually pay attention to the way that scientists currently believe the universe came into being - plain ol' creation, one thing being changed into another - there's no reason to assume intelligent agency. There are plenty of examples all around us of complex systems being created without guidance from an intelligent hand. Complex cave systems, beautiful rock and ground formations, etc. form naturally over time because of the flow of water. Rows and rows of rippling sand dunes are caused by wind flow arranging the sand into natural, yet patterned, shapes. Snowflakes form in beautiful patterns when water vapor is frozen at high altitudes - a completely automated function that produces sextillions of unique crystalline shapes.

Sure, some asshole will probably try and tell me that that's no different from, say, Minecraft. Because good ol' God had to put the water, stone, cold air, etc. there in order for all of this to happen. But there's no reason to believe that. There's no reason to believe that if a simple temperature reaction in the atmosphere can create an infinite number of entirely unique structures, a natural explosion in the pre-universe cannot create one planet out of sextillions that has the particular balance of water, rock, ground, minerals, etc. required to support life - or that life itself, which is incredibly simple in its formative state anyway, could not spring out of the sextillions of amino acid chains that formed in such an environment.