That's interesting & I have come across this type of objection before. It confuses a pattern with a design. Clouds have patterns, not designs & the distinction is very important.<quoted text>
Design requires a designer; contrivance requires a contriver.
Paley, William, 1802. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. London: J. Faulder, p. 11.
Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes.
Even an anthropomorphized designer need not be a deity. The atheistic religion of Raelianism, for example, proposes that humans were created by extraterrestrials (Raelian Movement, n.d.).
Evolution is a designer. Via variation and selection, it serves to favor reproduction and shape things according to environmental conditions.
If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?"
I agree design does not require an anthropomorphised designer, just a capable designer. I will deal with natural selection later, for now we need to be clear we don't confuse patterns for designs.