In “The Argument of Design,” William Paley argues that the universe has a designer. The need for an intelligent designer is represented through the comparison between the watch and the human eye. In this article, I will critically evaluate William Paley's argument by providing a brief summary of the content I will focus on and discuss how I believe his arguments are invalid. To begin, Paley described a situation in which you look at a rock and wonder where it came from. He responded by concluding that it had been there all along since it is just a simple object, but it would have been different if it had been a complex object, like a watch. The answer to the question would be different if the object was a watch because a watch is a complex object, the parts are assembled in a specific way, it has a specific purpose, so it must have a designer because it couldn't have simply been there (Paley 58). This statement could be represented by this argument: P1): A watch is a complex object P2): Complex objects need a designer C): So, a watch has a designer The argument so far seems strong and valid, which means that if the premises were true, the conclusion would also be true, but Paley uses this as an argument to portray that the universe must have an intelligent designer. Paley manages to describe the human eye and describes its structure. He then mentions that it differs from a fish's eye because a fish's eye is round and helps them in the water. He also mentions the bird's eye and how it helps them see nearby objects because it is a necessity. He uses these facts to come to his final conclusion: the universe is so complex that there must be a powerful and intelligent designer who created it (Paley 32). Paley mentions that…the middle of the card…is a designer, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be perfect (Paley 30). Third, there is no designer because some parts of the clock do not have a function Paley responds by stating that just because we are not currently aware of the function of some parts of the clock, does not mean that they actually do not have a function (Paley 30) . Fourth, the objection that the clock is a random event is rejected by Paley by stating that it is impossible to believe that it is a possibility because no body in the right sense would think so. The objection that there is a law or principle that arranged the clock and made it into that form is rejected by Paley because he indicated that the principle of order cannot create the existence of a complex object. Works Cited William, Paley. “The Design Argument.” PHL 110. Toronto: James Cunningham, 2013. 58-65. Press.