The Blind Watchmaker?

Definitely off the top of your head, (or rather, dogrelata's head, as I've just checked the O.P.) because Paley died in 1805. Actually, the quote is from 1802, which doesn't effect the point you're trying to make.Whether a watch in 1802 or a modern space satellite, that it takes a lot of cultural evolution to produce Paley's analogy seems to be the point dog's making. However, I don't really see that the fact that we couldn't make things of a complexity comparable to what's seen in nature in the stone age makes the analogy any worse in the context of its times.As no one had really come up with a viable alternative, intelligent design by an invisible designer was the standard view, and the young Darwin considered Paley's ideas to have merit, before he actually started looking closely at nature.Who knows, as someone who still follows 200 year old outdated ideas, you may follow Darwin's route in the future, Nemesis, if you actually look closely enough at biology.

I know what you mean, GDR, but that's not true. I agree that Darwin's ideas are not incompatible with theism, but they do take away the necessity of a direct, interventionist creator God. Paley, on the other hand, like his descendants the modern I.D.ers, was saying that complex biological organisms, like watches, must have a direct designer. So he was what would be called on EvC a creationist.My point in that post is really that Paley's ideas were not ridiculous in the context of the knowledge of the times.