The reason we see teleology in everything is because scientists and everyone else observes teleology all around us at every level. We observe cosmic unity, inbuilt structures, natural laws, mathematical predictability and regularity, precisely balanced particles, cosmic fine tuning, inherent patterns and biological genetic coding of breathtaking complexity. And we logically and rationally conclude that all this is far to complex and improbable to have occurred by undirected “chance” events, and far to “unified” to have been organized by an ad hock unguided committee.
As for the role of “random chance”, you no doubt believe that all these “vastly improbable” cosmic events happened by undirected “chance” events. Even though no testable or verifiable scientific evidence exists for any of this, including the origin of the universe, life consciousness and a vast multitude of other phenomena.
I need to tell you that “magic” and “miracles” can be defined as “vastly improbable” events for which there exists no scientific answer. And that’s exactly what godless “metaphysical” naturalism and mainstream scientism is founded on. Namely, “vastly improbable” chance events for which there exists no testable or verifiable scientific answer to this very day. Meaning, it is not a matter of whether or not theism and atheistic naturalism hold metaphysical beliefs beyond science and physics, and believes in " miracles", but rather whether the miracle worker resides in or beyond the universe.
As for “contingency”, it is here that you face your greatest dilemma. A “transcendent” non-dependent “self-existing” first cause is both a “philosophical” and “scientific” necessity, without which nothing would exist and we wouldn’t be having this conversation). Here’s why:,
The scientific world affirms that we all live in a universe that cannot explain or sustain itself. A universe that is undergoing radiometric and biological decay , and is running down towards a final state of maximum entropy(disorder) and heat death.
My challenge is this: Can you or anyone else name ANYTHING in existence “within” the universe that is “self-existing” and “self-explaining”, and NOT dependent on a cause outside and beyond itself to explain its existence. In other words, can you name ANYTHING in existence in our running down dying universe that is capable of creating the universe, and all else, Namely, something that is “self-existing” .
Because if can do this a Nobel Prize awaits you we can eliminate God, as we don’t need to look beyond and outside the universe for a cause.
So, here’s your contingency problem! If everything in the universe needs a cause, and nothing exists “within” the universe that is self-explanatory and “self-existing” you are of necessity forced to look beyond the universe for a cause. And if no preceding cause of the cause of universe is “self-existing” there is no philosophical of scientific basis for life or existence. Not ever! Forever! In which case nothing would exist and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Meaning, the existence of a non-dependent “self-existing” first cause is both a philosophical and scientific necessity to explain why anything exists. And this necessary self-existing entity has been historically called God.
Now all you have to do to eliminate God and prove me wrong is provide us and the Nobel Committee with an answer to my challenge.