A) it’s a poor argument
B) it’s a poor analogy
A) Why is it a poor argument?
Because it seems to disprove the very thing it’s trying to prove by emphasising the extreme difference between a man-made object and any natural object. Assuming this is the very first time we have seen a watch, we instinctively see that it is of a different class than anything else we have ever seen. So how does that help lead us to the conclusion that something like an eye must be designed by god?
B) Why is this a false or poor analogy?
It expects me to make a decision on the origin of the watch on the basis of seeing it at only one point in time. This is similar in concept to a blind man making a decision on what an elephant looks like by analyzing one part of its body, ie at only one point in space. A better analogy is that I can observe the watch over its lifetime, say a few years. If in that time I can see that initially a watch sperm and a watch egg fuse to make a single watch cell, a zygote , which then divides to make two watch cells which divide again to make 4 watch cells etc so that after a short period of time there is before me a fully functioning watch I can make an informed decision about whether that watch was built by a watchmaker or not. Alternatively, if I can look at a person over a period of time and see if he does not exist one day but appears to come together magically as a fully-formed person overnight where it is clear that he is being crafted in some sense whether by an invisible person or something more tangible then I can make a more informed opinion as to whether he has been built by a human-maker or not
rsvpaa 