Looking for truth

I think you're a little confused - we do not "know" many of the things you assert to be the case.

Your arguments are always skewed by your pre-existing, powerful desire to demonstrate the existence of an entity that's crucial to your religious belief system.

Your denial requires evidence.

You deny being an evolution-denying advocate of Intelligent Design?

I do not deny evolution as long as you limit it to what can be seen and validated, and that is not from a single cell to the vast array of life around us now. Small changes in an established system that amount to alterations in size or density, changes to variables already in existence, or the elimination of a variable, resulting in a degrading or diminished outcome.

"what can be seen and validated" - but the ability to read the genomes of all living things is enabling us to confirm that all life had a common ancestor - that proof is in our DNA!

It is not necessary to have been collecting samples and making observations many millions of years ago to be able to form such conclusions.

You seem quite ready to be able to accept the unknown when you want to, but conveniently reject it when it doesn’t fit your narrative.

We shouldn't invent explanations that suit us when it comes to matters of fact?

'Intelligent Design' is discredited. You serve an ideology that seeks to establish a particular narrative that connects the emergence of the Universe and life with your scripture.

That has little to do with the pursuit of truth as I understand it.

I’m not inventing anything by saying a mind can do the things that we see when, without one, it becomes unexplainable.

There is no need to invoke a "conscious agent" for the emergence of life until there is no other conceivable explanation. We haven't reached that point.

You are simply not acknowledging that what we see requires a mind, and you want to ignore the FACT the only explanation we know that can account for all we see is a mind that can come up with the functional complexity and powerful enough to design the universe to carve out an environment to host it. 

it is like you assume what is natural requires nothing but an unguided process by default.

This is anti-scientific. Accepted and peer-reviewed scientific universe-origin hypotheses include the simulation hypothesis which requires intelligent design. By your logic, we should reject the multiverse hypothesis since there are other conceivable explanations.

Philosophy, such as epistemology, allows reasoning where evidence falls short.