Proof (redrawn)

(A redrawn version of my first comic.)

Best way to convert an atheist. Show them a book they don’t believe in and say it’s true simply because it says it is. No actual evidence required!

How a Watch Works

One thing that I don’t usually hear when people argue against the watchmaker dilemma, which asks, “If you found a watch in nature, would you assume it formed naturally, or would you assume it had a creator?”, is that it has a logical flaw in the argument.

Most people bring up the point that people who use this as an argument for God don’t fully understand the concept of evolution, which is often true and a serious concern, but there is a more basic flaw in the argument. 

Those using this argument think that evolutionists make up the facts, use incorrect or irrelevant facts, are being tricked by deceptive facts, are using the wrong facts, or have the right facts but are coming up with the wrong conclusions. These all can be argued using other facts and counteracts to disprove the facts or conclusions of evolutionists. And to be fair, some creationists do attempt this.

The major flaw in the watchmaker dilemma, however, is that instead of using any form of logic and scientific inquiry to counter evolution, it assumes the conclusion and implies that assumption is more logically sound than the scientific method. Assumptions have their place, but not against well and heavily researched scientific theories. 

Another problem with using assumption here is that it ignores why we are assuming. We happen to know where watches come from. That’s why we assume a watchmaker. In fact, we probably aren’t assuming. The watchmaker’s name will be right on the watch. My last watch was made by Casio. That’s not an assumption; I used evidence (the Casio label on the watch) to come to that conclusion.

Similarly, if we came across an apple, we don’t assume a human creator, not in the same sense as the watch, at least. This is because we know where apples come from.

This is the problem with assuming things of a complicated nature. When trying to learn how plants worked, we didn’t assume we already knew. We researched and studied (and still do), and learned how they grew, and we took that knowledge and used it to grow crops, gardens, or house plants or whatever we needed or wanted to grow. Same thing with animals and their domestication, or germs and medication to stop their spread. These were not figured out by using assumptions, they were well researched using the scientific method.

And we don’t even assume that we’re right when we do come to conclusions. If we figure out that we’re wrong about something, we figure out what was wrong and fix it, or, if necessary, throw out the idea entirely. If we are right, we still look for more information to better help our understanding of the topic. We don’t assume to have all the answers. We will never improve intellectually by assuming the answers. 

To merely assume a watchmaker in this argument is, at least, lazy and, at most, deceptive. 

I guess a creationist could somehow come to the conclusion that evolutionists assume just as much as they do, despite being able to show all the evidence that they used to come up with their conclusion. If so, ignoring your opponent’s argument or changing it to suit yours is, at least, idiotic and, at most, again, deceptive. 

Sorry for going so long on this one. Hope you like the comic.