WHAT DO YOU SAY, READER?

"Some men ask for a sign, Lord."      
      
It is unclear why men ask for a "sign" let alone what the sign is supposed to determine.   Is it that there is a creator God?  If so,  you haven't said so -- and this is something you needed to say explicitly for your piece to be considered well-written and comprehensible. And as Hume demonstrated,  what the universe may very well be a sign of is that there are many gods  The argument from design is even more compatible with polytheism than it is with monotheism.   It also does not support the idea that the creator of the universe is personal, let alone all-loving, all-knowing, omnipresent, or even sentient.  As Aristotle noted, he/she/it need only be powerful enough to bring the universe into being.  
   
BTW, your syntax makes you say that Jesus restored to life everyone who had died before he "came".   There's no biblical warrant for that claim   Moreover, there is ancient testimony concurrent with the Gospels as well as from before Jesus' time that others besides him brought people who had died back to mortal life.  So what do their actions stand as signs of or prove?  
     
And what evidence is there that eyes have souls, not to mention that it is eyes having souls that is the cause of men being able to see.      
     
Furthermore "descry" is a transitive verb.  It needs a stated object.  So what is it that science is asking men " to catch sight of"?

"What will you say?"

What will I say about what?

Can you guess about what? If you can't, there is something wrong with you or  me.

No one should have to guess.  And there's something wrong with you if you think you've come anywhere near even hinting at what a reader is being asked to speak about.

Perhaps.

If you proclaim
that raising people from the dead
reveals the raiser as divine,
then logically
it is the case
that you must also say
unless you are a hypocrite,
Elijah, and Elisha, too
Aesclepius and the Tyana man,
are of this kind
that is, they must be seen
as gods;
for they, just as the Nazarene
was said to do,
brought back from death
some men (and women, too)
who’d breathed their last
and traveled to the land
where no light shines.

So what you fain imply:
that having power over death
means one
is the creator of the world,
involves you inextricably
in claiming that
some other entities besides your lord
do stand
behind creation’s sway.

Some men seek compelling signs
that prove with sone finality
a good creator god exists.
And in response
old Paley and his followers have said
the fact of all the harmony within the universe
is quite enough to stave off doubts
on his/hers/its reality

But others note, in light of all the chaos
reigning up above
there’s no designing, personable hand
that’s on display
or can be found
behind the glory of the cosmos’ vast array
of planets and of stars.

For nature (which is actually
indifferent to us)
has its own peculiar way
of ordering itself.  
It doesn’t need divinity
accounting for our world’s
or of the universe’s origin
or apparent harmony

And all the kinds of creatures on the earth
were not set out distinct at once.
Creationism holds not up
to sober scrutiny.

And how the fact that Christ
(along with other folk)
made quick some dead
provides the proof there is a god
makes little sense.

So what is to be said?
As Hume has shown (a man
it’s likely that his works you haven’t read),
the argument for designer god,
especially a single one who is benevolent,
that rests upon perceived design
in what’s above our eyes,
lacks cogency and competence.
And those who hear a heavened voice
declaring otherwise
have fooled themselves
relying on some question-begging lies.

Very dear Lozzamus,
Thank you very much for choosing my poem for your reading list.