When analyzing William Paley's "watchmaking" argument, it is difficult to avoid a first reaction other than a confused and somewhat sarcastic reaction, really? The concept of his justification of an intelligent designer as the entity responsible for the creation and order of nature is not difficult to understand, it is simply conceptually and logically flawed. In other words, it doesn't make sense. But what is the “watchmaking” argument? Paley wrote an anecdote in which he sees a wristwatch on the ground and deduces the following about the origin of this complex and intricately constructed machine:1. it was designed and assembled intentionally by a watchmaker;2. it was built for a specific purpose;3. he did not simply appear via a random act; Paley concluded that, like a wristwatch (or any human-made artifact), a complex product of nature (e.g. an eye, a bacterial flagellum, or the universe itself) must have been designed and assembled. intentionally and with an orderly purpose rather than by a random act or evolutionary process. But who or what has the capacity to design an eye, a flagellum or the universe? Its only possibility is an intelligent designer, which is God's code. In evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of Paley's supposition (a theory involves observation and testing), any reasonable person without pre-drawing a conclusion based on their own biases (e.g. Dover School District; Ken Ham) cannot in no way conclude that Paley establishes the existence of God in any way. Like many in the modern creationist and intelligence design (ID) movements, Paley formed an opinion that can be inferred to be based on an obligation of faith, but offers no supporting evidence – pure conjecture. Furthermore, like modern day anti-evolutionists, P...... middle of paper ...... counterargument, how does Paley explain the possibility of more than one designer/God, a disordered universe based on observed observations. and disordered geological or astronomical activity, and exactly what other universe is Paley using to make his comparison with ours? Paley and modern-day identification specialists have no evidence-based or tested answers to any of these questions, let alone more complex investigations such as human chromosome number two or Tiktaalik. If believers like Paley, Ken Ham, and members of the Dover School District want to change the hearts of their communities, they must do so honestly. Creating stories about watches or rebranding titles for creationism does not allow the use of the word science, it does not prove that God exists, and it certainly does not disprove 150 years of applying the scientific method to show Darwin and its the finches were right.