Frozen watch
Price depending on size and material
Will be sold in a maximum of 15 copies
1 copy is sold (in aluminum)
1 copy is printed 550X550 on 2 mm aluminum
Comes with mounting device
Price for this 5600 SEK
Stock in the picture comes from Galileo_manuscript Creative Commons Zero Photo ©Staffan Ehde 2019
Here I have been inspired by the theologian William Paley. His response to the Theory of Evolution, was published in 1802 under the name: Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. I quote his first chapter:
In crossing a beach, suppose I hit my foot against a stone. Suppose I were asked how the stone came to be there. I might possibly answer that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever. It would be difficult to show that this answer is absurd. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be asked how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given--that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there--would be an acceptable answer. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other: namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive -- what we could not discover in the stone -- that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose. The parts are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day. If the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.