Fester already gave you an excellent example - the cubic inch of water.
No, it's not an excellent example. It relies, as all his examples do, on an inference that one makes. An emotional inference at that. It's just not evidence.
All that there is, is evidence of The Designer.
Only if you've already made up your mind before you look at the evidence. That's the problem with this type of assumption - it's only convincing to those who are looking to reinforce their preconceived notions.
Evidence must be convincing to a party who doesn't have a predetermined stake in the outcome. Persons from all backgrounds and perspectives must be able to reach the same conclusion. This type of inference doesn't do that, it only makes sense to people who have decided that they want it to make sense.
That's the difference between faith and science, and that's why it's dangerous to get the two confused.
It's called inductive reasoning. It happens to be convincing to most reasonable people. Like, where there is design there is quite likely a designer. It is your own emotional, pre-conceived notion that leads you to conclude intelligent design is an unscientific concept.