We appreciate good design when it overcomes obstacles[1], to achieve some end[2], working within physical rules[3]. A design can be considered efficient when it uses fewer steps, and elegant when it seems natural and obvious. While many arguments for Creationism/Intelligent Design are based on the supposedly great design of biological entities, they overlook a glaring question: how this premise of design matches with the concept of an omnipotent deity. Let me illustrate based on my concept of design.

1. I am omnipotent: What obstacles must I overcome?
2. I am omnipotent: Since I know all, and essentially do all, what end could I possibly want to achieve?
3. I am omnipotent: I determine physical laws. I could change them as easily as I could work around them. I could choose not to create them. Everything could just work if I decide it.

I could create physical laws, then for some reason decide to work around them to do other things; but how would I even do that? Being omnipotent, I would know every outcome, because I would cause every outcome. I could create free will, but then that would contradict my omnipotence -- how can I create a blind spot for myself? Worse yet, if I am everything in the universe, am I not the universe itself, and self-negating? I'd be like a painting made of wet paint on a canvas of wet paint in an infinite bucket of the same paint. Finally, people talk of purpose given them by their deity. Well, what's the deity's purpose then? Not only does he have to deal with the ultimate in relativism (everything relative to himself), but he's totally alone. Even if he creates stuff, he's still just a lonely puppet master.