[whattajoke]

A FIVE-YEAR-OLD can look at a watch and tell you it didn't come together by shaking a bunch of watch parts in a bag.

That same FIVE-YEAR-OLD can tell you that watches aren't self-replicating organisms and therefore the analogy means absolutely nothing.

A FIVE-YEAR-OLD can look at a sand castle and tell you it wasn't created simply by the action of waves and sand.

That same FIVE-YEAR-OLD can tell you that sand castles aren't self-replicating organisms and therefore the analogy means absolutely nothing.

A FIVE-YEAR-OLD can look at a log cabin and tell you it wasn't made by a bunch of logs randomly falling in a forest.

That same FIVE-YEAR-OLD can tell you that log cabins aren't self-replicating organisms and therefore the analogy means absolutely nothing.

And a FIVE-YEAR-OLD can certainly look at himself/herself and know that he/she doesn't have a monkey for an uncle.

That same FIVE-YEAR-OLD can tell you that his uncle is a human being and therefore the analogy means absolutely nothing.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Which is simpler: Pieces of a watch, an assembled watch, or an assembled watch that self-replicates? A devout materialist would consider all three to be of equal simplicity, or complexity. No intelligent design involved in any case, but simply a product of nature. And that is what a watch in any form ultimately is. Right?