The Argument Design based on St. Thomas Aquinas's the fifth way.

Whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end. Unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence.  As the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call, God.

So Aquinas's argument is essentially here being a bunch of things that are unthinking and they are evidently moving toward a goal or purpose and unthinking things cannot move toward a goal or purpose. This is the purview of thinking agents and therefore there must be some thinking agent that’s causing these unthinking things to move towards their goal or purpose.

There are a number of problems with what Aquinas says, he begins his ideas about the governance of the world. Which as far as I can tell automatically smuggles in the idea of the governor. But, it’s worse than that because Aquinas doesn’t give us specific examples. He speaks only in the abstract and he also uses weasel language saying it’s “evident” that these unthinking things are moving toward a goal or purpose. Then, he says that it’s plain that unthinking things can’t do this and only thinking things can, therefore, a thinking thing is doing it on behalf of the unthinking things.

This is a bit of equivocation here. It’s a bit of a cheat because while it’s probably fair to say that it’s plain that unthinking things cannot move towards a goal or their own that thinking things can. It is not evident as he claims that they are in fact moving towards a goal. He offers no evidence; he offers no argument that these unthinking things are moving toward a goal or a purpose. He uses the easiest term of it’s just “evident”. He watches them get to the goal of purpose and then concludes that this is where they were intended to arrive at every corner he is smuggling in “intent” in order to make his argument that there must, in fact, be a designer. When an agreement backs up its claim with the statements like, isn’t it obvious, or it’s plain, or it’s evident, or clearly. We need to be extra diligent about analyzing those claims to see if they are in fact, obvious, evident, clear, and plain. How did Aquinas determine that there was the intent, that there was a goal, that there was a purpose, that these unthinking things were moving towards a goal?

He doesn’t even give specific examples. He speaks merely in the abstract, obscure, or complicated and asserts that it’s obvious that they are moving towards a goal. Is it obvious? How do we go about recognizing design? One of the features of an intentionally designed object or system that allow us to recognize that it is in fact design. So, how do we recognize design? How do we tell what’s the design and what isn’t? When you listen to people talk about this, when apologists engage they sometimes want to step right over this critical aspect of how we determine what is and isn’t design. They want to exploit the intuitions and inferences we make. We make a building requires a builder, a painter requires a painter, a creation requires a creator. With all the points, the question is how did you determine that it was, in fact, a building? How did you determine that it was, in fact, a painting? How did you determine that it was, in fact, a creator? When we are talking about the universe labeling it created in order to claim that there is a creator is dishonest apologetic. It is a circular argument where you are injecting the very thing you’re trying to prove in right at the beginning. The truth is we recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs.

When someone says this had to have been designed or this must have been designed or this is almost certainly being designed. What they are saying, it is not possible or not probable for this particular set of circumstances to come about by natural means. The first question we have to ask is, how did you determine that? When we evaluate these things it’s not just a matter of saying, “this thing is clearly designed and we have evidence for it. Design needs to be demonstrated. You can’t just argue from analogy. 

Credits to Matt Dillahunty for a concise explanation of the Fith Way.