Whether you call it Creationism or Intelligent Design, the same fault runs through the argument. The Watchmaker Analogy misses the point of scientific exploration. Intelligent Design proponents make a strange (and erroneous) assertion that, in fact, the buck stops with a sentient watchmaker. First, why would one assume that the even more complex entity that is the Watchmaker did not itself have a Creator? Would it not be better to continually trace, in a scientific manner, until one can go no further, instead of assuming the whole process terminates with a penultimate Creator? Indeed, the whole concept of First Cause is anathema to the scientific process. Such a Cause has no scientific explanation for existence, rather a philosophical one.
The second flaw is the assumption that, given the universe is finite and has a starting point, such a start would require a first cause taking the form of an uncreated Creator. The fact that there are complex designs present in the universe is no strict argument for such a Creator. Innumerable scientific experiments have shown that complex entities can be the result of many smaller, simpler interactions. We have much proof that evolution, which seems inordinately clumsy and slow, is the major agent of change in biological organisms. Add the fact that we’re dealing with timelines extending over hundreds of millions of years, a scale which we as short-lived beings have almost no hope of really grasping, and the argument for complex life via Creator is not necessary at all. If this is the argument for such a Creator entity to exist, then there is no a priori proof that it does exist. What Creationists see as a specific set of decisions that gave (or give) rise to complex life can be described as a billion year journey through evolution. The only difference is that we actually have proof of the biological mechanism of evolution, whereas empirical proof of an uncreated Creator is entirely lacking.
