Ahh, you're appealing to the Richard Dawkins Method of Reasoning : Things "seem" to be designed with a purpose, but don't let your eyes, logic and intellect deceive you! In reality they're not!
He admits that the universe shows "apparent" design properties, but then affirms that it really just "looks" like it was designed. Hmmm... you have to be REALLY intelligent to believe this stuff.
You “see” design in nature, yet you BELIEVE that nature “created” things by random processes. So they are echoing evolutionary high priest Richard Dawkins, who said that things give the “appearance” of having been designed, but they’re not. The foolishness of such a statement can only be discerned by someone who takes a few minutes to THINK about it. How many things do you know that are the product of random processes that “appear to be designed?” They may appear to be DESTROYED, but certainly not designed.