The Teleological Argument

1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: 2"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 5Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, 7when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, 9when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, 10and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, 11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
Job 38: 1-11

The Teleological Argument states that there is order in the universe which is the result of an intelligent designer. The Teleological Argument also says that the order and complexity found in the universe cannot be explained by random chance which would be absurd. The Teleological Argument is also the same thing as the controversial Intelligent Design Argument. Here is summary I did Paley's famous Teleological Argument.

Paley to illustrate why the order and complexity of the universe could not be a result of chance but as a result of intelligent designer, he uses the analogy of man finding a watch on the ground. The man after inspecting the watch sees that it is made out of many parts each with its own purpose and function as part of the watch. He also notices the watch is has a useful purpose. The man then must conclude that this can not be a result of chance. The complexity, order, and purpose of the watch show that it was made with intent and design and thus there must have been a watchmaker.

Next Paley responds to eight potential arguments to the Teleological Argument. Summarized here:
I. Ignorance of how the watch was made does nothing to hinder the conclusion that it took a watchmaker to make one.
II.Imperfections in the watch do not invalidate the conclusion that there is an intelligent maker behind it. Just that the watch has any design at all points to the watchmaker.
III.Parts of the watch that have no purpose or that we do not understand the purpose of do not invalidate the conclusion.
IV.It would be wrong to assume that the watch and its various machinery could be accounted for as the sum of the materials just coming together where it was found.
V.The watch cannot be explained as coming together by the “principle of order” since a principle could not put together a watch.
VI.It would be absurd to think mechanism of the watch not pointing to contrivance but only a motive to make the mind think so.
VII.It would be absurd to think of the watch coming together as a result of “metallic nature.” A law presupposes an agent.
VIII.The observer would not be wrong because he does not know everything concerning the matter. He can still make a conclusion based on what he knows.
__________________
The material found here is a summary of material found in:
chapter 4 of God 2nd edition edited by Timothy Robision
BTW: I did respond to comments made on the Cosmological Argument