[Fester Chugabrew]

It asserts a cause without evidence for the cause.

The evidence is in the result. How could one assert a cause and evidence of the cause without either pointing to a result or indulging a tautology? You want me to say the Designer is evidence of a designer? Screw that.

Intelligent agent = cause
Organized matter behaving according to predictable laws = result = evidence for cause.

Understand?

[Dimensio]

The evidence is in the result.

The "result" is the initial observation. You're just making up a random cause for the observations and then declaring that the existince of the observations is evidence for your cause. Only an idiot would reason like that and only an idiot would fall for that line of reasoning.