[Dataman]

My question is "why insist upon assuming a designer"?

Just a few of the evidence for a Designer:

From nothing nothing comes.
Irreducible complexity of systems and organisms that absolutely rule out random chance as an explanation for their existence.
Common characteristics in design.
The existence of not just information but complex and huge amounts of information in the simplest of organisms.
The existence of intelligence.
The existence of the personal.
We must not forget the great supporting role played by the impossible materialistic alternative: darwinism.

[Dimensio]

From nothing nothing comes.

From where did the designer come?

Irreducible complexity of systems and organisms that absolutely rule out random chance as an explanation for their existence.

I've seen quite a few criticisms of the irreducable complexity argument, but I've never seen those criticisms addressed.

Common characteristics in design.

Which means what, exactly?

The existence of not just information but complex and huge amounts of information in the simplest of organisms.

Again, this infers design, how? What would an undesigned organism look like? The existence of intelligence. The existence of the personal.

So you've made two starting points that supposedly lead to a conclusion. How do these starting points get to that conclusion.

We must not forget the great supporting role played by the impossible materialistic alternative: darwinism.

Strawman. Evolution does not imply strict materialism within the universe, and only an idiot would claim as much.