There is a difference between us and your robot. The difference is in the way it is designed.
If we created a robot, we'd do so for a purpose. We would maximize it's efficiency at accomplishing that purpose. When it looked at it's programming and make-up and asked itself "why is it like this?" the only answer would be, "to maximize X".
Similarly we can look at our make-up and programming. If it maximizes anything, it is successful replication of our genes. There is no one who would design us with that purpose. But evolution explains it very well.
On the robot's case, however, it might find that it's design maximized it's abilitiy to mine some substance, refine it, and send it a port where it would be transported elsewhere. It could then easily infer that it was designed by whoever made use of the refined substance.
The robot also lacks something else that we have - context. The robot and it's "species" are alone. We fit into an amazingly varied web of life. When we look at the diversity of that life we see paterns - a nested hierarchy of relatedness. A simple example of that - all animals that have fur also produce milk and are warm-blooded, and have a similar structure of ear bones. Some of these animals fill niches that are very very similar to other animlas that aren't mammals (bats, for instance, fill a niche very similar to birds), but very different from other animals that are mammals (bats fill a niche very different from elephants for instance). The design inference gives us no explanation for this - common descent does. There is a similar form of evidence is the geographic distribution of species. And I haven't even brought up the molecular and fossil evidence.
So the robot has entirely different evidence available to him, and will make entirely different conclusions from it.
*snip*
