Suppose an undiscovered primitive society with no knowledge of western civilisation, or peoples outside their own society, no knowledge of any western technology cut open a fish and find a small ladies watch inside, an object they have never even imagined let alone seen before. Absolutely 100% no idea.
Knowing what we know, would it be unreasonable if one faction of that society assumed it was intelligently created based on the intricate design, symmetry, and material?
Trek posits an undiscovered
human primitive society here.
All human societies, as we know, use different kinds of "technologies". Humans are makers and designers. We are all tool users and makers. "Primitive" societies (if there are such things) are no different.
Would it be unreasonable on finding a watch for a human being in a "primitive society" to posit that, maybe, this is an example of a previously-undiscovered artifact made by (other) human beings?
No, that would not be unreasonable. It would be entirely consistent with the existing knowledge of the "primitives".
On the other hand, it would be unwise for the hypothetical "primitive" to jump to the premature conclusion that the watch must be human product. For all the "primitive" knows, the watch could have been made by aliens. Granted, that's a less likely scenario, since the "primitive"
knows that human beings exist, they they can design and build things etc. It would be more reasonable to posit the existence of some other tribe of undiscovered humans out there making watches than it would be to posit the existence of a completely alien and unknown watchmaking species. But that, of course, doesn't rule out the possibility.
But let's ask anothe question. Would it be reasonable for our hypothetical "primitive" person to assume that the watch was created by a God?
The answer ought to be obvious: no, it would not. That's an even worse hypothesis than the alien one. Multiplying entities needlessly even more. Which, again, isn't to say that it can be completely ruled out.
Remember, though, the question here is what would be reasonable to
assume. The best answer to that is: one shouldn't be in the business of
assuming anything that isn't actually evidenced. That has proven time and again to lead to error piled on error.
And would it be reasonable, given what we know, to assume it could, given enough time, be a product of nature?
In point of fact, of course, all watches are "products of nature", just via a slightly circuitous route involving the prior natural evolution of human watchmakers.
Would it be reasonable to assume that a watch self-assembled, without conscious design? No, it wouldn't be. Why not? Because we humans are not aware of any conceivable process by which that could happen. Which, again, doesn't rule out the possibility. (Again, recall that we're talking about what is and isn't
reasonable to
assume, not about what is or isn't
possible, which is a different kind of question.)
Yes I suppose you could say it is a rehash of Paleys great argument from design.
I don't see anything "great" about an argument that is demonstrably flawed. As an argument against evolution by natural selection, which is what Paley tried to use it for, it was an abject failure.
In my scenario the design faction would have been correct just by simply observing the complexity, mechanism, markings, and overall beauty of the object.
None of the things Trek lists here is a sufficient indicator of design. And the last - beauty - is a very subjective criterion.
After everything that final decision would have to decided the same way the design faction originally came to their decision.
This why ultimately whether the world is designed or not is dependant upon one’s worldview
This is an error. Recall that the "design faction" originally came to their decision by making
assumptions, whereas the "skeptical" faction drew on what was already known to put forward tentative, testable hypotheses. While the design faction leapt immediately to an unjustified conclusion, the skeptics took a rational wait-and-see approach.
Since the "design faction" is demonstrably being irrational and clearly failing to think clearly about the matter, in contrast to the "skeptical faction", any reasonable person will agree that the skeptics have the high ground on such matters.
I believe all living forms are designed and suited to their environments.
It "just makes sense" to Trek. *sigh* This is a refrain we've heard over and over since he appeared on this forum. It's not a justification - just a statement of belief.
