Now here's an odd fellow to meet on a windy Oregon beach! In his Dialogues on Natural Religion, David Hume (1711-1776), makes several criticisms of the Design Argument —both in its global (entire universe), and local (adaptedness and intricacy of organisms) versions.

We have already noted that the Paley's argument from design can be considered an >>> abductive argument. 

However, Hume represents these arguments as being >>> inductive arguments or arguments from analogy >>> analogy arguments.

Hume contends that the Design Argument is a weak analogy. For example, consider the following analogical argument:

Human beings (analog) circulate their blood.
===================================
Dogs (target) circulate their blood.

Let's call human beings the analog, and dogs the target. Hume observes that such arguments are stronger or weaker, depending on how similar the analogs are to the targets. For example, consider how much weaker the following argument is compared to the one above:

Human beings (analog) circulate their blood.
===================================
Plants (target) circulate their blood.

Now consider the logical form for an analogy argument (where n measures the degree of similarity between analog and target):

For global design arguments like this:

Hume notes that watches do not resemble the universe as a whole—n has a low value. 

For local design arguments like this:

Hume's point still stands: analog and target are so dissimilar that the analogy is very weak.