The teleological argument states that if something shows signs of design, then, there must be a designer.  This argument was famously discussed in William Paley’s 1802, Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of a Deity.  The oft used “Watchmaker” analogy derives from there.  Here is a quick paraphrase of the Watchmaker analogy.
I’m walking in the forest and hit my foot on a rock.  You ask me, “Where did that rock come from?”  I answer that the rock, for all I know, has always been there.  Or, that it naturally ended up there through erosive processes, a landslide, etc.  If however, I am walking through the forest and find a watch lying on the ground, my deduction would be different.  I would assume that the watch hadn’t come together and arrived at that point by natural processes.  The intricacies, function, and design of the watch necessitates a designer, or a watchmaker. 
Paley went on to describe that the appearance of complexity in the natural world pointed to an even more powerful, intelligent Designer.  The premises and conclusion of Paley’s teleological argument goes something like this.
Premises

1. Human artifacts are the product of intelligent design and have purpose.
2. The universe resembles these artifacts regarding the appearance of design and purpose.
3. Therefore:  It is probable that the universe is the product of intelligent design and has purpose.
4. The universe is enormous and is vastly more complex than human artifacts.

Conclusion:  The universe must have a vastly intelligent and powerful designer.
Paley’s argument is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it immune to criticism.  Richard Dawkins, the atheistic crusader, has famously responded to Paley’s argument with a book entitled, The Blind Watchmaker.  David Hume penned his work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in 1779, which sets forth his arguments against the teleological argument.  As with any argument, including arguments for God, everyone approaches the data/evidences with their own presuppositions.  That is, no one is without bias.  Understanding that bias is inevitable is helpful in understanding why something that seems perfectly reasonable to you may seem completely irrational to someone else.
For our purposes, we will not go into tremendous detail regarding the teleological argument.  Instead, we will discuss some foundational topics and principles.
                The Beginning of the Universe, including all matter, mass, energy and time.
                                Three Possibilities

1. The Universe Spontaneously Generated as a part of a closed system.
2. The Universe is Eternal
3. The Universe was Created

Regarding the universe popping into existence on its own, there are numerous problems.  One involves the First Law of Thermodynamics.  The First Law says that in a closed system there is a finite amount of energy that remains constant.  When energy is used, it transitions to less usable forms of energy.  Burning a piece of wood is an example referred to by Cengel and Boles in their 2002 work, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, which is used as a textbook in engineering schools.  The wood contains energy which when burned becomes radiant heat and/or ash.  The amount of energy remains the same.  It simply is changed into different forms.  This is true of our universe.  The First Law of Thermodynamics including the principle of the conservation of energy, is one of the most widely accepted scientific truths.   Stated simply, when it came into being, there was a finite amount of energy within the universe.  This energy is neither added to nor lost.  It simply changes forms.  Before it existed, the universe was nothing.  No energy, no mass, matter, etc.  As such, it would require an infusion of energy from outside itself to remain consistent with the First Law.  For non-energy to produce massive energy contradicts this known principle and renders the idea of a self-creating universe to being implausible.
Secondly, the idea of an eternal universe denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The second law states that this finite energy is being expended in its usable form as it is transferred into less usable, less accessible forms, i.e. the ash and the radiant heat from the burning wood.  The Second Law is also the source of the idea that the universe is moving toward disorder or entropy.  As the usable energy in the universe is transferred into less usable, less accessible forms, entropy is the natural result.  If the universe were eternal, we would have run out of usable energy and the universe would have reached chaotic disorder.
Finally, the idea of a Creator God is consistent with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics as He was the outside agent Who was neither material, energy, mass, etc. Himself, but Who acted to introduce these, or create these out of nothing.  Some may contend that God as the answer isn’t intellectually satisfying or scientifically rigorous.  I disagree.  Science is limited to observable phenomena in our universe, i.e. light, sound, matter, mass, energy, time, etc.  Those who want to explore beyond the beginning of these are leaving the realm of the scientific and enter the realm of the meta-physic or the supernatural.  One may contend that just because a god created the universe, doesn’t mean it was the God of the Bible.  This is a valid argument.  We will explore that challenge in a later post.
Most scientists have recognized the problems inherent in the ideas of a self-creating universe or an eternal universe and have developed alternate theories.  Most of these theories simply push the question of a start back one step.  Others may use terminology and descriptions that sound oddly like those one would use to describe a Creator/God, but since their presuppositions don’t allow for it, they use other words and terms in their descriptions.  The general conclusion in the scientific community is that the universe has a definite beginning.  Most scientists refer to this as “The Big Bang.”
Next week, we will begin to look at the “Big Bang,” and its implications in the scientific community as well as for those of us who believe that God created the universe.
(Thank you to Jeff Miller, PhD at Apologetics Press.  Your article, God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective, was helpful to me as I wrote this.  https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 )

     How would one learn the truth about a person from history?  Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington…anyone we wanted to learn about who preceded our arrival on planet earth.  A fair questioner could ask if we have a high level of certainty that the aforementioned individuals actually lived.  The same questioner could then go about using the Historical Method to determine the legitimacy of the claims made about these people.  He may then weigh the forensic evidence that these people lived their lives in particular ways.  In order to learn about these leaders from the past, or any other person from the past, requires that we first search for literature, archaeological evidence, and other clues that allude to their existence.
     The Historical Method is a means for collecting data to discover what has transpired in the past.  When investigating purported events, whether alleged to have occurred a month ago or a millennium ago, all evidence must be examined to determine the accuracy of reports.  When reviewing historical writings (often referred to as textual criticism) there are numerous factors that historians consider. 
     1.  Authorship—was the person an eyewitness to the events they are reporting, a primary            source.  Or, was the person a secondary source, that is, did they get their information directly from a primary source.
                a.Motivation of the writer.  Was there a motive for the writer to communicate falsehood or  truth?
    2.  Dating—how much time has passed since the events occurred and when the author wrote his/her account.
    3.  Manuscripts—Original or a copy?  If a copy?
          a.Accuracy compared to the original.  Deduced through comparing multiple copies looking for textual variants.
               i.How early are the copies?  How many do we have?  These factors help assure the veracity of the copies. 
     There are many other criteria that may be considered when researching history, but these are some of the important ones.  I will not begin to examine the New Testament accounts of Jesus, or even go into the Old Testament documents in today’s blog entry.  I am only wanting to establish that there is a means for discovering historical fact or at least a means for determining whether there is good evidence for purported events.  I also want to establish that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discover historical truth through the scientific method.  Scientific inquiry is of great value in determining scientific truth.  It is useless with unrepeatable events such as births.  You and I have a birthdate.  Science will not reveal that to us.  Historical documents such as our Birth Certificates, Passports, newspaper articles about us, biographies written about us, etc. are how one would learn about us.
     Later in this series we will assess historical documents in reference to the God of the Bible, including the Bible itself, as well as other Christian and non-Christian references.  Next however, we will examine the evidence for a Creator/God from nature including life on earth as well as the apparent design of the universe.  This, “argument from design” is often referred to as the Teleological Argument. 
     Until next time.  
​     TG