When analyzing William Paley's "watchmaker" argument, it's hard to avoid an initial reaction other than confused and a little sarcastic, really? The concept of his justification for an intelligent designer as an entity responsible for the creation and order of nature is not difficult to understand, it is simply flawed conceptually and logically. In other words, it makes no sense. But what is the “watchmaker” argument? Paley wrote an anecdote in which he sees a wristwatch on the ground and deduces the following about the origin of the complex and intricate machinery:1. was intentionally designed and assembled by a watchmaker;2. was built for a purpose;3. he did not simply appear through a chance act; Paley concluded that, similar to a wristwatch (or any man-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 to an ordered purpose rather than through a random act or evolutionary process. But who or what has the ability to design an eye, a scourge, or the universe? His only chance is an intelligent designer, which is God's code. When evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of Paley's supposition (a theory involves observation and verification), any reasonable person without a pre-established conclusion based on his own prejudices ( e.g. Dover School District; Ken Ham) cannot conclude that Paley in any way establishes the existence of God. Like many exponents of the modern creationist and Intelligence Design (ID) movements, Paley formed an opinion that to infer was based on an obligation of faith, but offers no supporting evidence: pure conjecture. Furthermore, like modern anti-evolutionists, P...... half of the paper ...... counterargued, as Paley does to explain the possibility of more than one designer/God, a messy universe based on observation ? and messy geological or astronomical activity, and exactly what other universe is Paley using to make his comparison to ours? Paley and modern identifiers have no evidence-based or tested answers to any of these questions, let alone more complex questions like 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 should do so honestly. Making stories about watches or rebranding titles for creationism does not allow the use of the word science, does not prove the existence of a God and certainly does not disprove 150 years of applying the scientific method to show Darwin and his finches were right.