Rationalism           

The teleological argument, AKA the argument from design. It states that a designer must exist since
the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern.

If you found a watch in an empty field, you would logically conclude that it was designed and not the product of random formation. Likewise, when we look at life and the universe, it is natural to conclude there is a designer. We see how perfectly the universe and life forms operate. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work there must be many different parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. Only together do they exhibit their total function. This function is by design.
 

     1.  Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.

     2.  The universe resembles human artifacts.

     3.  Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.

     4.  But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.

     5.  Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

This argument is simple to understand since humans are designers by nature and it is natural to think in terms of things having purpose. It is also consistent with Rom. 1:20,

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 I think the teleological argument carries weight because it matches with Scripture. The Bible says that we are made in God's image. Therefore, there are certain things that we will naturally do. Even though the unbeliever suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), the Truth is still there.

Evolutionists have difficulty with apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. What good would an eye be all by itself? How can evolution account for these detailed arguments? So far, it can't.