Dawkins rebut to Paley's watchmaker is quite common assumption to propose:

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way... it is the blind watchmaker."(1)

However, I would still state that it is assuming this conclusion. If naturalism is the case, then everything is brought about with these "blind forces", including anything that we make. As such, there is no way to differentiate in such a world between that which is made blindly and that which is made by a "watchmaker". The difficulty is the same with monotheism, for anything that is is made by God (thus the perceived difficulties in the "problem with evil"... and I say "perceived" for a reason), though theism has already brought arguments to why this makes sense. On the other hand, naturalists (in the religious sense) like to act like they aren't making any assumptions that would impede their own ability to analyze a topic.



I guess what I'm trying to say is that both groups are assuming the supposed "result" of their discussion. Montheism is able to escape this difficulty because it relies on faith. For naturalism, though, they're just stuck.