So, to explain the above a bit…
There is an apologetic/argument for intelligent design that grew out of a proposition by William Paley:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired 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…. The watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use…. Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
There have been a few rebuttals and they typically point out that the “design” theists are pointing at doesn’t exist. And that’s correct. But there’s another problem with this argument.
In the Intelligent Design world, you should not be able to distinguish between the rock and the watch. If all of reality is so perfectly designed then we should look at trees or rocks and ask, “who put them there?” Or, we should look at watches or cell phones on the beach and simply assume that the natural god created them through whatever natural processes it created rivers or mountains.
That we draw a distinction between natural forms and man made ones exposes the lie at the heart of the argument.
Or, as the comic shows, in the view of these particular theists we are walking watches on a beach of watches by a sea of watches in a universe of watches.