That's certainly not true.
Not claiming that (straw man, perhaps?) However, as you should know if you're going to argue science and the scientific method, a evidence for the claim must be presented before the claim is considered valid. So tell me, what evidence do you have for adaptability other than your circular logic? Besides, evidence for adaptability ≠ evidence for design. If you want to get philosophical, adding more complex things can be reduced via Occam.
You're applying a posteriori standard to an a priori claim. Again, no, it's not the same. Since we're shifting this to philosophy, we will argue there. You have, essentially, presented the classic "Unmoved Mover" argument. If I grant you the universe needs a cause, you claim "goddidit." However, when I apply your own standard to yourself and beg the question "what caused god?" you will undoubtedly claim "he's the alpha and the omega" or "he doesn't need a cause." Well then why "god" but not the universe?" Again, apply Occam and see what's left. Science is a quest for knowledge, not comfort. Sorry you don't see that.
But they're not as good. Plus, there's evidence for vacuum fluctuations and particles-antiparticles. There's no evidence for "design."