Explain the main features and strengths of the teleological argument for the existence of God (A-Level, Religious Studies)

The teleological argument, is a a posteriori, inductive argument for the existence of God. This means it is based on inferring the existence of God from sense evidence. The argument relies on sense evidence that demonstrates the existence of design tin the universe. In this essay we will discuss the main features and strengths of the arguments proposed by William Paley in his work Natural Theology.
Paley makes two arguments for the existence of God on the basis of design. The first argument, for design qua purpose is rooted in the Aristotelian concept of telos. Paley seeks to demonstrate the existence of a clear purpose in nature that could not come about by chance. Instead it must indicate the existence of designer. An analogy from natural theology forms the bedrock of this argument: if walking across a “heath” you were to stumble upon a rock “I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever”, however if you were to stumble upon a watch, one would rather argue that at some point there must have been an watchmaker who for whatever purpose had designed and built the watch. Paley then compares the watch to the world around us: First, he cites the complexity of the watch, containing many moving parts. This for Paley bares strong similarities to the many parts of the world around us; for example the many complex ecosystems that create the environment we live in. Second, all of the complex parts of the watch work in union towards a common purpose to tell the time and that should even one part fail the purpose could not be fulfilled. For Paley the world works in the same way, with each complexity serving a role in fulfilling its purpose thereby indicating that it was designed.  Furthermore, he notes that even if the device did not work, it would be plain and obvious that there was still a clear purpose behind it and that therefore the existence of a designer is still clear. Paley then uses other examples of design in nature to argue that nature is designed to move towards a purpose. He compares a telescope and a human eye, explaining that the parallels between the two show that the eye was clearly designed with the purpose to see. Furthermore, for Paley such complexity could not come about by chance or some basic “principle of order” as that would be as absurd as a hurricane going through a junkyard and creating a Boeing A380 aeroplane. Instead it must have a designer. Paley then goes on to make an argument for design qua regularity, arguing that the regularity present in the universe is indicative of careful design. He focuses on the laws of nature, in particular the existence of gravity and how it suspends us on the earths surface whilst it rotates at the correct speed, allowing for the existence of life. This argument is part of Paley’s wider belief in a mechanistic universe. The laws of nature, Paley argues are seemingly designed to allow for the existence of human life. This could not be explained by chance, only through the existence of a designer.
Paley's argument has received support from Swinburne for its intuitive simplicity, “simplicity is always evidence for truth”. However, it has equally faced a number of a powerful criticisms. First, the logical conclusion of Paley's argument is that there is a purpose to which the world is moving; however it is not evident from his argument what that purpose is. Paley might rebuke this, arguing that the purpose is the existence of human life, drawing on later arguments made by Tennant through his Anthropic Principle. Secondly and more damningly however, is the fact that nothing in Paley's argument suggests the existence of only one creator, nor of am omnipotent, infinite, Christian god. Hume points out in fact that a "team" of creators might actually be better placed to design such a complex universe. This reveals the true extent of Paley's argument, whilst he might successfully demonstrate the likelihood of design in the universe, he bears no light on the source of that design, leading those looking for a more definitive proof of the God of classical theology wanting.