Stop embarrasing yourself.
Why do all of your social/political posts amount to "Grrr modern atheists are stupid" + "vague implications that Catholicism is right about everything"? We get it--you're very Catholic and you think atheism is stupid. That's fine, but this isn't "a good take on the issue" because in the minds of people who know what they're talking about on this, there is no issue.
If the author of your article in the OP there is so keen on distancing himself from the "fundamentalists" who outright deny legitimate scientific discoveries, why does he then go on to...outright deny legitimate scientific discoveries?
For that matter, why don't religious people ever try to build arguments against scientific principles that don't contradict religious scripture?
I'm not attacking Catholicism here, just the form that lets faith get in the way of legitimate science. Spirituality and religion exist to deal with questions that are too big to be dealt with by science, but this isn't one of those questions. Any "debate" that may have existed on this topic ended in the scientific community years ago. Evolutionary biology has become accepted as scientific fact, and there's a reason for that.
I think faith and science can be compatible, but please, if you're rehashing the teleological argument you must be
awfully desperate for new material to fight the evil evolutionists with. You need to stop trying to answer scientific questions with religious means (and vice versa for others.)
Let's go over a basic rendition of the teleological argument:
Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:
1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
3. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
4. Therefore, God exists.
#3 is an arbitrary faith-based assertion, so we'll leave that one out for the moment.
#1 amounts to: "This is real hard and I don't get it." The fact that you can't understand how such complexity could have arisen naturally is not a case against natural complexity;
it's a case for your own failure to comprehend it. This is a limitation on your own faculties of reasoning and understanding, not on science itself. I'm real sorry if this doesn't gel with your religious sensibilities, but you're grasping at straws here in a desperate attempt to justify your own arbitrary faith-based worldview. It doesn't work like that.
#2 is a consequence of #1. I recall this being a terrible argument when they introduced in Philosophy 101 in college, and it's still a terrible argument now. The whole "IF I SAW A WATCH I WOULD ASSUME IT HAD A DESIGNER" thing? Really, Peguy? I expect more out of you than meaningless rhetoric and highly questionable arguments from an intro to philosophy course. This is just weak.
You don't have any natural ability to look at something in a vacuum and recognize based on complexity alone whether or not it's "too complex to have occurred randomly." This is an entirely arbitrary decision.
The only reason you'd be able to tell from looking at a watch that it's been designed is that you already know what a watch is from living on Earth and are aware from previous experience that watches don't grow on trees. This isn't based on some magical inherent understanding of watches as being too complex to exist naturally; it's based on simple prior awareness of what a watch is in an Earth-based context.
If you went to a foreign planet where you had no idea what anything is, you wouldn't be able to use this magical power to determine which objects are designed and which ones aren't because your sense of context as to the nature of watches (an obviously man-made creation) would no longer apply.
For that matter, where do you draw the line? How do you have any reliable frame of reference as to what is complex enough to occur randomly and what is not, other than the fact that looking at the universe this way makes you more comfortable?