Aristotle not only harmed science with his supposed facts but also with his introduction of teleology into science. His pupil Strato of Lampsacus and the pre-Socratic, Thales of MIletus, are ahead of many to this day as they warned against using teleology- planned outcomes in science. Now, Lamberth's teleonomic argument proclaims that the weight of evidence eviscerates all arguments with intent, so that God has no referents and thus cannot exist. He, thus, cannot be that Grand Miracle Monger, Grand Actor in history ( blessing America and saving Jewry -ah, the Holocaust], the Primary Cause and so forth.
David Hume's dysteological argument [from imperfections] eviscerates all teleological ones by evincing those imperfecitons and how other means could have designed matters.
The atelic naturalist argument is that all teleological arguments beg the question of planned outcomes!
God-talk means only God did it, and thus means nothing!
No need arises to find Him necessary to make an Ultimate Explanation.
Some prattle that neither is He a principle nor an entity nor a personality, bur rather the Ultimate Explanation;,but without being an enity or personality, He cannot effectuate Hiimself as that Ultimate Explanation!
That means double-talk as also Karen Arstrong also makes with her affriming apopathism, God is neither this nor that, but unwittingly affirming ignosticism! And catapathism fails,because He has contradictory and incoherent attributes!