This [argument] is [a posteriori]; it starts with the [world] and argues towards an undefined [god]. It is also known as the [Watching the teleological argument in action|teleological argument], from the [Greek] 'telos', meaning '[end]' or '[purpose]'.

It comes in three basic forms:

comparing the world to a [machine]
the apparent existence of [order] in the world
the impossibility of the world having arisen via [chance]

It's not as much fun as the [ontological argument], or as simply [big] as the [cosmological argument].

The first part, world = like machine, was done by [William Paley], among others, as mentioned above. He claimed that a [person] who saw a [watch] would know it had been [design]ed, as all the parts fitted together to form a working whole. This would apply even to someone who had never seen a watch, or if the watch was [malfunction]ing. Likewise, the world is made up of functioning parts which form a working whole, and so has been designed (and [creationism|made]. This applies even though we have nothing with which to [compare] the world, and even though the world sometimes appears to be malfunctioning. Many other scholars advanced this idea, such as [David Hume] (although he actually disagreed with it) and [A. E. Taylor].

The second part is somewhat [similar], and can be seen as an elaboration on the first. As [F. Tennant] argued, the presence of things such as [food chain]s, [season]s and the [law]s of [physics] make the world seem ordered, meaning that a designer is probable. Tennant, however, argued that this apparent order is not [proof] in itself, and all parts of the design argument must be considered together even to make the [existence of god] probable.

Lastly, it has been argued that the world is too complicated simply to arise by chance. [Pierre Le Comte Du Nouy] was a physicist, not a [theologian]. However, he argued that the simplest [molecule], that of [protein], is far too [complex] to have arisen by chance. He did, however, think it was possible if one allowed for an [anti-chance factor]. Le Comte Du Nouy did not refer to this anti-chance factor as god, but it could be [interpret]ed in that way.

The design argument has [criticism]s many and fatal, which deserve a [node] of their own.

Argument from Design (thing)