Because you have yet to present a single shred of scientific fact to support design. Saying that things are so complex that there must be a designer is NOT a scientific fact. No matter how many times you state it.
. Scientific evidence demonstrates time after time that when design is known, a designer is assumed.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. Let's see this "scientific evidence".
I'd form the sounds with my mouth; do you know a better oriface?
I'll be here all week; try the veal!
No one says "design is not scientific," we say, "assuming design in the absence of evidence is not scientific." See the difference?
All animals must eat to live--a scientific fact. How is chance(evolution) able to produce such a perfect order?
If it didn't, you wouldn't be here to object to it.
The probability lies with design over chance.
How would you go about demonstrating that? ("Evolution" is not the same as "chance"). Also, when you have two unquantifiable properties, in this case, "design" and "chance," "probability" is meaningless.
Scientific evidence demonstrates time after time that when design is known, a designer is assumed.
??? You assume quality "a" and then further assume a responsible agent. I don't follow that one.