The argument from design is a common argument employed by theists. It is usually argued that a house has a designer therefore the universe (which is rather more complex) must have a designer too. The argument fails on many levels.
Our first observation must be that, even if the argument succeeded, it would fail to achieve what the theist requires of it. What tends to be ignored is that it gives us no link whatsoever to the particular god which is being promoted. For instance, intelligent design could be the work of an evil demon. In fact, if the design analogy is pursued to its logical conclusion, then we should undoubtedly expect that the argument should point towards polytheism. After all, human design and production is almost invariably a team effort - houses, cars etc. are produced by any number of people all working together.
It is worth keeping in mind that, however dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb the design argument becomes, it remains an open question as to which deities, aliens or demons are implicated in the design process. It is lazy and dishonest to assume that everyone will simply roll over and accept the Christian god as being the culprit.
All of this is based on the assumption that the design argument has worked. However, it does not work - it fails miserably. This is an unusual argument because it can be treated mathematically and it can be established (with mathematical certainty) that it will never work. Because of this, it gives us an instructive lesson in where our thinking can go wrong in these matters.
The argument from design is logically flawed. In order to 'prove' design it rests on the assumption that design is present. It is a circular argument and, hence, is no argument at all. The problem seems to arise because human beings are easily bamboozled by probabilities. For anyone with a bit of knowledge of probabilities and who can handle mathematical inequalities, the argument is laid out beautifully in 'Logic : A Very Short Introduction' by Graham Priest.