I didn't propose any "creators". I simply observed that existence is an expression of design. And the "proof" is that it is extremely complex, interactive, and therefor organized. Chance has a role, but it is not the dominant factor.
The process of the evolution of life forms IS DESIGN.
Sorry, you are merely waving your hands and abusing terminology. First off there is no "proof" in the sciences. If you don't have evidence then you have nothing. And please, we are not fools here. We know what creationists are trying to claim when they use the word "design".
You are correct that chance is not the dominant factor. Natural selection plays a huge roll. And what is called "chance" is not really chance. Those in the insurance biz know that accidents happen. With a large population one is not dealing with "chance" one is dealing with statistics. Since variation is part of reproduction in a large enough population reaction to changing environments is all but guaranteed (if the environment does not change too quickly. For example the non-avian dinosaurs were not able to survive a major meteor strike).
If you want people to take you seriously you need to quit handwaving and find some evidence that supports your claims.
Let me help you on that. In the sciences to even be able to claim that you have evidence you need a testable hypothesis first. If you can't formulate a testable hypothesis all you have is an ad hoc explanation. Those are of no value at all in the world of sciences. Two questions, and the second is the more important one, what observations would support your claim? What observations would refute your claim? The second needs to be a reasonable possible observation. If you can't think of a way that your idea could possibly be refuted what you are proposing is not science.