The teleological argument is one of the most powerful arguments for Theism. In its simplest form, the argument can be put into a syllogism like the following:
P1: If there is a design, there must be a designer.
P2: We see design in nature.
C: Nature has a designer.
As the syllogism is logical, it can only fail if one of its premises is erroneous. If design does not need a designer, then seeing design in nature is irrelevant. Similarly, if design needs a designer, but there is no design in nature, we need not invoke a designer.
Few people would deny that design needs a designer. Even if they were to attempt to deny this fact, they would never be so foolish as to put such beliefs into practice. It would be impossible to convince them that their smart phone lacks a designer, for example. Thus, the most common response is to reject the idea of design in nature.
But sometimes, they stop just shy of admitting even this! You can often catch them accidentally alluding to it, but sometimes, they flat out confess the appearance of design. Richard Dawkins, for example, once wrote "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose..." (1). With such a confession, the onus shifts to the Evolutionist to show that this appearance is illusory.
One way in which they attempt to do this is the bad design argument. The bad design argument is, ironically, a badly designed argument. There are many variations, but they all follow the same logic: The Evolutionist points to something in nature they believe is poorly designed, they may follow it up by suggesting that no intelligent designer - least of all one with God's omni attributes - would make such a creative choice, then they'll conclude that Evolution makes perfect sense of the design.
As an example, there is the link between the digestive and respiratory systems. There is a common passage for the food and drink we consume, and the air we breathe. It is argued that this would be a foolish design if it could be credited to any god, much less a God like Yahweh. Human beings drown very easily, and it takes less than a cup of water. Why, then, do we eat, drink, and breathe, through the same opening? By Evolutionary reckoning, this makes sense for Evolution, but not for Creationism.
But then we consider the ingenious way in which the problem is solved. When we swallow food or drink, the pharynx stimulates a series of reflexes. First, the velum (commonly known as the "soft palate") is raised, shutting off the nasal passage. Then, a leaf shaped flap called the epiglottis closes over the trachea. This flap is left open while breathing, but prevents food and drink from going to wrong way. Finally, food is forced down into the oesophagus.
All of this means you, as a well designed human being, shouldn't have much more of a problem eating or drinking than your ancestors. For 6,000 years now, human beings have been eating, drinking, and making merry, with very few problems. I've literally been drinking as I write this article, yet I have not drowned.
But now let's imagine, as indeed we would have to, a scenario in which Evolution actually happened. With no intelligent guidance, a species with none of these design features would have to slowly and gradually develop them over many generations. Get it wrong, the species goes extinct the first time it takes a drink. Well, now I understand why Scripture says "...the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Corinthians 1:25). In our utter hubris, we can look at the design that gives us the privilege of life and say "that's an awful design", and in the same breath, credit this supposedly bad design to a blind process that would prevent such a bad design from evolving in the first place!
The irony of this is it's not even a scientific objection. It's a philosophical one. It's based on assumptions about what an intelligent Creator would do, or how we should be designed. However, knowing what we do know, this is a bad argument, and because of what we don't know, we can't even pretend we could do better if we tried. In fact, we have yet to create life, even from pre-existing life, with one obvious exception: The very way in which we were designed to. God commanded us to fill the Earth, and using the system He gave us, we succeeded. He commanded us to have dominion over the animals, which He also commanded to fill the Earth, and once again, using the process He gave us, we succeeded. 6,000 years have passed, and in that time, not once have we created life from the dirt, as He did. We've done it how He told us to. The result? Even now, in our fallen world, our bodies may last over a hundred years. Here I am, unable to keep a laptop in working order for half a decade, yet my body has outlived them all.
Of course, in this life, even our well designed bodies are destined to perish. As the Lord promised us, "...dust you are, And to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:19b, emphasis mine). It's wrong to say we're designed to die, but we lost the privilege of immortality the day we committed our first treason.
But death is not something God actually wants for us. Rather, it is a necessary evil, because we are evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death. Yet God is a life giving spirit. He is not a God who takes pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefers that all men should repent. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
What, then, is the solution? Only God's greatest design: The Gospel. God is a God of justice. He cannot leave sin unpunished. But who takes the punishment is optional. On the one hand, of course the sinner can, and objectively should, receive their own punishment. But as we are designed for eternal fellowship with God, He has made another option. The fancy term for it is "penal substitutionary atonement". If one who is without sin takes the punishment for the sinner, the one who sinned can receive the reward of the righteous one.
But there are, of course, no valid candidates. Even if a normal human being was to somehow remain free of sin for their entire lives, it would be unjust to punish them, and of course even this would only save one soul. Enter Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus took on human flesh, with all of our infirmities, even being tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. And being the bodily form of eternal Godhead, His one time sacrifice is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world! Thus, He made that sacrifice. In due time, Jesus died on the cross, receiving the full penalty for sin. The result? His reward is up for grabs.
But while it is open for all to receive, it must indeed be received. Those who seek eternal life will find it in Christ. Repent, and confess Him as Lord, and He will raise you up, as He indeed was raised. But for those who stubbornly resist this, a fate worse than Evolution is reserved. Scripture calls it the "second death", an everlasting time in which one's sins are forever punished. We were not created by millions of years of chaos, nor were we created for it. But receive it we shall, if we so choose. Alternatively, salvation is free, having been bought for us by God's own Son. Choose, therefore, between a religion of death, which brings death, and the religion of life, which brings eternal life.
References
1. Dawkins, Richard - The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, USA, 1986