While I agree that the Teleological argument does have its drawbacks, it seems to me that you are missing the point of the teleological argument. The concept behind the teleological argument is about the complexity of the universe. Essentially it should boil down to that we if we see a house sitting on a hill, the logical conclusion is that there is a creator. In the same way we see the world around us and it had to come from somewhere or something and the logical conclusion is that there would have been a builder. This argument really does come from the 2nd law of thermodynamics which can be summized that any system (the universe is a system) will descend from order to disorder.
It often helps to think of this argument in a more true to life example for us to understand. My favorite example is for a person’s house (or especially the bedroom of kids and sometimes mine). Typically the rooms in my house will naturally become more disorganized unless it is acted upon by an outside force. This is why its constantly a battle to keep my kid’s bedroom clean as well as the rest of the house because it is always going from a nice clean room to a war zone.
Going back to the issue of the argument Weston and Hume make, the problem is that part the argument Weston uses to attack is just a straw man of the full argument which does not have the full strength of the teleological argument since it is just an analogy to better understand the teleological argument. However, a better way to use the teleological argument is within a framework established through evidential apologetics as well. Some of the best evidence for God is statistical analysis relating to the world. This is part of how the evolution proponents require more and more years to produce a theoretically viable option for a creation without a creator. This is why the universe now is billions and billions of years old even when other parts of science don’t support that age of our universe.