So I see where you are coming from. This doesn't eliminate the possibility of a designer, but invoking complexity or "looks designed" is hardly criteria for appealing to a designer.
Actually, I think his point is more this:
This argument fails - A) Life is too complex to have arisen without aid. B) Complexity implies there is a designer.
The reason this argument fails is simple.
A "Designer" would have to be complex. As such, a designer likewise be too complex to have arisen without aid. Therefore the designer must have had a complex designer who himself was designed by yet another designer.... etc etc etc
If, at any point, you say "Oh, well, this one designer doesn't need to have been designed" then you are admitting that complexity doesn't require design.
At that point, arbitrarily stopping it at 1 "Designer" or 100,000,000 "Designers" is the same - since there is no, and can be no, evidence for the existence.
So, if you are accepting that complexity does not require a designer, the only logical place to start is from what we can actually observe - ie no magic invisible designer at all.