You very briefly cover some of the most well-know arguments for and against the argument, but, as yourself pointed out at the end of the paper, the argument itself tells us nothing about the Designer, or whether there was more than one, single Designer.
Furthermore, Al Plantinga has also shown that the “Fine-Tuning” version of the Teleological argument is just as inconclusive. The Theist (especially the Christian), for example, wants to demonstrate the following propositions:
a. The universe is designed
b. The universe is designed by exactly one person
c. The universe was created ex nihilo
d. The universe was created by the person who designed it
e. The creator of the universe is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good
f. The creator of the universe is an eternal spirit, without body, and in no way dependent upon physical objects (this list comes from “God and Other Minds,” by Plantinga)
At most, then, the Teleological argument demonstrates the possibility of (a), and nothing else.
I would love to get in contact with you. I feel our desires and ambitions line up well. If you get a chance, take a look at my site and hopefully shoot an email my way. I’d live to discuss the possibility of partnering on some posts or topics.
I’ve always felt humans to be such egocentric creatures. proposing with some certainty that we are the one shining example of life in an unimaginably vast and uncharted universe and that we are an elaborately sick version of an ant-farm. I don’t propose that the coincidence of life is not infinitely spectacular, but that it is in fact no more than a beautiful coincidence. I also find it wonderfully ironic that theists who propose blind adherence can’t entertain such an idea, after all, what’s the saying? “have a little faith”
You can always find a gap to throw your cookie cutter explanation into, as long as there’s something that we can’t explain. But what is the actual evidence for your cookie cutter explanation? If the only evidence for design is that there’s no evidence for an alternative, then it seems to me that that puts them on equal footing, whereas you imply that it makes design more likely. And when it comes to probability, you argue that the probability of the universe having the traits that it has by chance is very low. Be that as it may, you make no attempt to compare it to the probability of a designer existing and having the traits that he/ she/ it has. How can you judge which is more probable if you’re not comparing the probabilities to one another? What you have is a cookie cutter explanation which makes no predictions, and therefore has no positive evidence, and which one can’t attach a probability to. That’s not a convincing alternative to anything. And since the burden or proof is on theists, it shouldn’t convince someone that a God exists.
You make several good points in your statement, but I feel that you may have missed the point of the original article. I personally read it as a means to show the flaws in the main arguments against teleology, not so much as a way to prove teleology.
I unfortunately cannot think of other resources to recommend for your reading, but I feel that looking up the arguments for a designer will help you get a more rounded view on the argument.