I think you're affirming the consequent. I think your argument is something like this:

1. If there is a creator, we can call the universe 'creation.'

2. We call the universe 'creation.'

Therefore, there is a creator.

But that doesn't follow. There are lots of potential causes that result in 'we call the universe "creation,"' including 'I want to call the universe 'creation' regardless of what anyone else says.'

For instance:

1. If I want to call the universe 'creation' regardless of what anyone else says, we can call the universe 'creation.'

2. We call the universe 'creation.'

Therefore, I want to call the universe 'creation regardless of what anyone else says.

Or even this:

1. If Elvis is alive, then we can call the universe 'creation.'

2. We call the universe 'creation.'

Therefore, Elvis is alive.

Bottom line: Affirming the consequent doesn't work.

That's sorta on the right track, but not quite right. The Powerball analogy would be rejected by Intelligent Design people. (And that's not the same as creationists--far from it--so if I'm off track in bringing in ID stuff, feel free to vote me down. :) )

They might see the example below as more indicative of their position:

A set of letters are present that happen to spell out 'Hello world.' Meaning, the letters APPEAR to have some sort of content or order to them.

The odds of those exact letters being present are 1 in a kajillion. And you can give all sorts of reasons for those odds. Doesn't matter. The point is there are letters appearing to have content/order.

Given that, is it more likely that the letters are present at least in part because of some sort of ordering intelligence, or is it more likely that it was random?

Of course, just because they appear to have order/content doesn't mean intelligence was involved. Correlation doesn't entail causation.

But given that order/content appears to be on the table, which is more likely: Some kind of ordering intelligence or not?

The follow up question is, 'Okay, fair enough, but can you even answer that question with any kind of precision??'

ID people say, not only is intelligence more likely, it's also discernible through such and such techniques, evaluation of certain kinds of evidence, etc.

ID people, of course, are left with the burden of showing how their methods/techniques can determine--at least probabilistically--that intelligence is at work.

Opponents of ID are then tasked with arguing that ID methodology is not a legitimate approach to answering the question.