The question can easily be put the other way: Why should we not assume design is a part of every particle of the universe? As long as there is information for the human brain to interpret, it is there for a reason. At the very least it would not be available to human reason and sense unless it were "designed" in such a way as to make itself known.
I believe humans, as well as other species, are equipped with a certain amount of intuition (yet to be defined by science) that apprehends whether certain objects were fashioned by man, while others were fashioned by the "laws of nature." Even evolutionists know when they come across a tool that it was designed by dedicated human intelligence as opposed to the laws of nature. The problem is, that out of all the tools ever discovered or invented, not even their makers have been able to manufacture self-replicating material without the assistance of intelligence or design.
Occam's Razor. The universe has certain physical properties which govern particle interaction.
You have a problem. If you assume that complexity cannot arise without a design, then you have assume a designer. And then it's turtles all the way down.
As long as there is information for the human brain to interpret, it is there for a reason. At the very least it would not be available to human reason and sense unless it were "designed" in such a way as to make itself known.
Unsubstantiated assertions.
The problem is, that out of all the tools ever discovered or invented, not even their makers have been able to manufacture self-replicating material without the assistance of intelligence or design.
Are you back to the tired claim that because experiments are intelligently designed, they can only detect intelligently designed phenomenon?