This argument is one of the most popular, widely accepted and widely refuted arguments in theology. William Paley popularized the argument in 1802, a mere 23 years after David Hume used it as an example of a bad argument and showed it to be an incredibly flawed analogy.
Basically the argument is this – if you put the raw components of a watch into a bag/box/whatever and left them there, they would never become a watch without a watch-maker, therefore a flower had to have, by analogy, had a flower-maker and people had to have had a people-maker. This is flawed for many reasons, one is that life is self-assembling by it’s nature and is by definition not analogous to man-made things in many ways. I could argue for instance that a watch is complicated and comes off an assembly line therefore a flower, due to it’s complexity, must come off of an assembly line as well – obviously this is a flawed analogy. Also Hume pointed out that we know by direct experience, not inference, that a watch has a maker since we can tour a watch factory or workshop and see them being built, and we have not had a comparable experience observing a universe-factory or workshop (that scene in Hitchiker’s Guide doesn’t count, lol). He gives other arguments, but this is more than enough to show the argument is full of holes and is a bad analogy. Many things in life are analogous to technological things, but many things are also different.
Anyway, rather than dealing with this refutation (I have never heard a response to it yet), they just camouflage the argument by using other man-made things for the analogy and hope no one will notice they’re repeating an argument that was refuted over two hundred and thirty years ago, decades before it was even popularized. They say a tornado flying through a junkyard couldn’t make a jet plane, they say that a painting needs a painter and a builder needs a builder so you must have a maker too, etc. My favorite so far is a parable about an oreo cookie in a glass of water. Apparently some guy knew his chemestry and people would test him by putting various substances in water and he would try to identify them and explain how they came about naturally, so then one day a guy put an oreo cookie in the glass of water and that is supposed to prove christianity.
Yeah, I didn’t get it either.