The Argument from Design, also known as the teleological argument
It basically states that due to the incredible order of the Universe, it seems unlikely in the extreme that the Universe was not designed by a Creator.
A common form for the Argument from Design is the Watchmaker Analogy, which runs something like:
If one finds a watch sitting on the beach, its orderliness would cause one to assume that there was a Watchmaker.
In the same way, the incredible order of the Universe would seem to imply a Creator.
Problems with this Argument.
One of the most glaring errors is the faulty assumption about our method for identifying the watch as being designed: most of us would actually assume a watchmaker because we know from previous experience that watches are engineered by humans.
Even if we were to encounter completely unfamiliar man-made goods, we would still be more likely to adduce their manmade nature from the materials and designs used (we know that most leather, plastics, pure metals, and so on are the results of human effort) than from their "orderliness." Furthermore, when the analogy is applied to life, it must be emphasized that, unlike living beings, the watch is not a self-replicating structure with factors to modify the structure and selective pressures to regulate which structures are preserved (Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker").
Because of the effects of natural selection, organisms have a form that approximates conscious engineering.
When the Watchmaker analogy applied to the Universe as a whole, what makes it truly worthless is that the assertion that the Universe is strikingly orderly is absolutely without basis, due to the fact that there is no backdrop to which we can compare the Universe.
In the Watchmaker Analogy, the watchmaker is assumed because the watch stands out against the seemingly random backdrop of nature.
However, there is absolutely no backdrop to which we can compare the Universe.
The anthropic principle One particular form of the teleological argument rests on the 'anthropic principle'.
This version of the argument says that, if the global properties of the universe had been slightly different, then life would have been impossible, therefore some intelligent mind must have designed the basic properties of the universe with a view to making life possible.
This is vulnerable to the criticism, common to all arguments from design, that it implies the existence of a designer who is not Himself designed, and the argument thereby undermines itself.
Also there is the manner in which the universe evolved.
If the rate of expansion of the universehad been less, the universe would have collapsed back on itself; if it had been more, the universe would have blown apart too quickly for stars to have formed.
As it is, the universe is expanding at just the right rate for stars to form and die, and then reform with enough heavier elements, such as carbon, to allow life to develop.
If this were a universe of the wrong type for life to develop, then we would not even be here to ask the question of why the universe is 'fine-tuned for life'. As an illustration, consider that every time you check your pulse, you find that your heart is still beating, yet this does not surprise you, because if your heart were not beating then you would be dead and unable to make the observation.
If being in a universe that is fine-tuned for life is a precondition for life to exist, then it is absurd for us to be surprised that we are living in a universe that is fine-tuned for life.
The dice image is one that is used on occasion:
Assume that one has 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion) dice. All these dice are cast in a fair roll.
The result that came up is incredibly unlikely (there are 6^1,000,000,000,000,000 possible outcomes). Those are the chances against life on earth as we know it.
Whether or not the dice analogy is accurate, the fact of the matter is, the result we have is indeed the one that came up.
There are odds stacked against the universe being fine-tuned for life.
Nevertheless, whatever the chanves mere fact that there is a universe fine-tuned for life does not in itself increase the likelihood that it came about by design.
The argument from design says that the world looks as if it has been designed by some intelligence, and thattherefore it has, and that that intelligence is God.
This argument is nowadays wholly implausible because modern science has shown how the world in all its complexity could have arisen through blind, mechanistic forces.
Moreover, the argument is logically untenable because it begs the question of whether God was Himself designed by some higher intelligence:
if He was, then we launch upon an infinite regress with no explanatory power;
if His intelligence needed no designer, then we might as well assume that the universe needed no designer either.