According to Paley in Natural Theology, what is it about a watch that seems to cry out for an explanation in terms of an intelligent designer? (Note all of the sophisticated objections that Paley anticipates and responds to.) In what respect is a living creature like a watch? Is this analogy strong enough to support the conclusion that the existence of God is the best explanation for the existence of a living creature? Why or why not?

Paley’s teleological argument for the existence of God uses a famous watch and watchmaker analogy in an attempt to prove the universe was created through intelligent design.
According to Paley’s argument, an observer of a watch would easily conclude that a watchmaker was responsible for creating the watch due to its function and complexity. To explain this, Paley refutes various objections one might raise to dispute his argument. One of these is the idea that it is impossible to know the watchmaker’s identity and therefore impossible to prove his existence. Paley says this is a logical fallacy, because not being able to correctly identify the watchmaker does not mean he does not exist. Another objection Paley refutes is the idea that the seemingly useless parts of the watch indicate a degree of randomness that an intelligent designer would not include. Paley says that just because some of the parts appear to be useless does not mean they are, but rather that we lack the ability to understand them.
In chapter 17 of Paley’s work Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, which includes the watchmaker analogy, he compares the watch to living creatures. Paley says that all animals have an inherent relationship to inanimate nature. Paley details how each element contained within an animal, such as the fluid in its ear, must be in perfect proportion in order for the animal to live. The watch similarly must have its parts precisely chosen and organized in order to function properly.
To answer the third question, I will propose an explanation for both sides:
To argue that Paley’s analogy is enough to explain the existence of God, you could discuss the ways in which he refutes counter-arguments that could be used to disprove his argument. You might explain how the laws by which nature operates cannot be random, because Paley mentions the necessity of a lawgiver if laws exist. You could cite how the various parts of an animal must come together in perfect harmony, just like a watch, in order for the animal to survive.
To argue instead that the analogy is insufficient in proving intelligent design, you could look at the logical fallacies Paley uses to refute the objections to his argument. Among them, Paley uses an ad hominem fallacy when he argues that anyone who cannot see the design inherent in a watch is inferior. To refute the objection that natural laws govern the existence of the watch, Paley employs an equivocation fallacy that equates prescriptive laws with descriptive laws. Paley’s need to use such fallacies in his argument could indicate that his argument is not sound and therefore not adequate in proving the existence of God.