Explaining the Commonality between Theism and Atheism in the Argument from Natural Order: Refining the Epistemic Contribution of the Teleological Argument from Nature

After Darwin's theory, the teleological argument from design faced numerous challenges and transformations to the extent that it could no longer explain order according to modern science, as the final cause was unable to account for Darwin's theory. In fact, there was a need for an argument from nature that could, in line with the transformation of Aristotelian natural philosophy, explain the existence of order and its connection to the creator of order within empirical sciences. This is because the teleological intent in Aquinas's argument from design, based on the final cause, suggested the will of an intelligent agent behind the world. But it seemed, the theory of evolution - understanding nature through the "efficient cause" – has rendered this transcendental intelligence unnecessary. Thus, the teleological argument from design failed to align with modern science and gradually, its application to the existence of God was deemed unscientific and unnecessary. Therefore, it is necessary to articulate order in such a manner and utilize it differently in theology and in the defense of theism, so that the empirical order of the world continues to necessitate the existence of God. In reality, it can be shown that the efficient naturalistic order is the only common point between monotheism and atheism that cannot be effective in attributing to the existence or non-existence of God. It is necessary to refine and complete this natural order in defense of theism. Based on this, the teleological argument from design remains significant in its own right.