I wonder if Richard Dawkins actually knows any watchmaker. No actual horologist would take his notion of the Blind Watchmaker seriously in accounting for complexity, even as an analogy. If the analogy that is used won’t, in and of itself, work, then it doesn’t explain what it intends to illuminate by using it as an example of comparison. If there cannot be a blind watchmaker, there cannot be an analogy for a blind watchmaker shedding light on some other mystery. It would be like saying the mechanism of natural selection accounting for evolution creating complexity and biodiversity is analogous to a blind abracadabra. It explains nothing. But for those who are really interested in the language of watchmaking, and how absurd it is that it should be conducted by a blind and dumb process as Richard Dawkins contends (blind because it has no “purpose” or “end” in mind, and dumb because it has no mind, no Intelligent Design) then these videos may interest you. And of course we keep in mind that the living organism, down to the nano-technical scale within even the most “simple” cell, is staggeringly more complex than any watch ever designed.