The watchmaker’s argument

His video is a good example of a sad phenomenon: the frequent use of ”logical fallacies” to cover up bad arguments.

(1) “Just because you can't think of something complex without a designer doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a fallacy of ignorance” – The “watchmaker's argument” and its ilk are abductive arguments – inference to the best explanation. The claim is not that we can't “think of something”. I can think of all sorts of things. The question is which one is *more plausible* and plausible given our background data.

(2) “Just because every complex thing you can think of is a product of design doesn't mean that every complex thing is a product of design. This is a fallacy of reckless generalization” – No serious philosopher would argue such a thing. The argument, in its strong version, is not inductive in such a simplistic way but abductive. If the creator of the video wants to discuss it, he should discuss this version. I will give you an analogical argument: I see smoke coming out of the forest -> the best explanation is a fire (maybe I am wrong, maybe there is a smoke machine there; but my explanation is the most plausible).

(3) “The clock is artificial, man is natural” – If what he means by natural is “he has no designer”, then this is just the desired assumption. Our argument seeks to show that man is not “natural” in this sense. And no one asks “Can you imagine?” – This is not the argument at all.

In short: the argument is abductive – from the observation that something (the universe, man, whatever it is) – “seems to be designed,” to the hypothesis that it is indeed the product of design. To deal with it, it is not enough to talk about logical failures. There are two relevant ways of criticism:

(1) Challenge the description or explanation: show that the appearance of “design” is an illusion/misdescription or that the hypothesis “there is a designer” is a bad explanation.

(2) Offer an alternative explanation that explains the same facts to a similar extent (and preferably to a better extent).

“The question is which one is *more likely* and plausible given our background data. ”

Is there an explicit argument that it is more likely and plausible given our background data that the universe, life, or any other natural phenomenon you choose, was created by design?

@Avivi – Yes. Whether it is convincing or not, each person will have to decide for themselves. If you have time (the PDF I will attach is 80 pages long), check out Robin Collins' article published in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology:
The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe
https://appearedtoblogly.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/final-blackwell-fine-tuning-proof-1-16-09-copy1.pdf

My main point is that the above video is a joke and that the ”refutations” in it do not even begin to scratch the surface of serious arguments.

Occam's Razor puts an end to this debate in a second.
I'm too lazy to develop this simple proof.