finite regress there would necessarily be a need for the existence of a designer. In fact, the existence of a watchmaking watch would only strengthen the hypothesis of a designer, for it would make the watch an even more complex system. So, Paley concludes, if it is the case that intelligent design can be seen in watches, then it should also be recognised immediately in nature. Hence, the world is the product of intelligent design, and that designer is God.There are two ways of setting out this argument in formal terms. The first to be dealt with is the most common interpretation of the argument: an inductive, or inference to the best explanation analysis. We may set out the argument thus:P1. There are some things, like watches, that can be immediately realised as the work of an intelligent agent, or designer. P2. This is something that we can realise with no prior knowledge of the object’s existence or particular properties: it is a matter of clear intuition on our behalf. P3. Nature contains complex biological systems that serve distinct functions.P4. These systems are (highly) comparable to things like watches in terms of having a distinctive purpose or function, ie: intuitive evidence of intentional design. C1. (Hence) It is at least plausible to believe that natural biological systems owe their distinct properties and functions to an intelligent designer.P6. The best (and perhaps only) explanation there is for the apparent design in nature is to hold that the world and its creatures are the work of an intelligent designer.C2. The most rational thing for us to believe, given this, is that the world is the product of an intelligent designer, and that designer is God.Next, one may consider the argument along deductive lines, although this is perhaps an unfair interpretation:P1. Watches contain complex mechanisms composed of intricate parts that serve a recognisable function. P2. A watch would not,...
