Well, through your persuasively arrogant attitude, I can tell that you have doubts in your own theories, which you try to conceal by belittling others with rather lame arguments.
Shooting holes in your argument is easy. Take your example: “If you find a cell phone on the ground, you can tell that it was designed even if you have no idea who (or what) designed it.” The point of the exercise is that it doesn’t matter if it was designed. Do you think for a moment that at a crime scene, the forensic scientists give a hoot about the maker of a cellphone, passionately arguing that it matters if it was made by Sony, or whoever?
This is because, for their purposes, that it is a cellphone, and maybe the information it contains, is what matters. Who made it, or why, is incidental information.
Yet you think that by insisting that it matters who made the cellphone, you will discover something. No you won’t. Because it doesn’t matter. It is incidental to everything else.
How about your other brilliant thought problem: “Suppose the unambiguous message Intelligent Design appeared in the clouds in thousands of places all over the world. Suppose it kept occurring for weeks on end. According to your reasoning, that would not be evidence of intelligent design because the designer of the messages is not directly visible.”
No, that is not true. However, were the message “Intelligent Design” to appear in the clouds, etc., without any other context, only a fool would think he knew what it meant. It *is* ambiguous. Two words, apparently in the English language. Appearing around the world, even to people who for the most part do not speak English.
The important questions, the scientific questions, would be “How are these words formed?” and “What do these words mean?” That there was an intelligence behind their formation, though it might be assumed, cannot be examined scientifically, so would have to wait. While waiting, scientific efforts would be used to try and answer the questions that might be scientifically answered.
The invisible cloud former, if it chose to remain invisible, could be anything, so nothing could be said about it that was germane to the event., until such time as it materialized in such a way that it could be examined.
Not following you here, brumuy. Incidental to what? The circuit design and power consumption are based on adherence to certain set physical laws and conditions; depending on the level of detail of knowledge of the laws, and the technological sophistication of the designers and fabricators, all cell phones will (presumably) have certain features in common, other things being equal: hence rendering the identity and characteristics of the designer irrelevant for functionality and/or analytical purposes.
But among the things which are NOT necessarily equal, but still relevant to the identity of the designer--and possibly the design of the phone--are such things as cost to the designer in their condition, intended use of the device, and (maybe) intended market for the devices--and therefore these factors, reflected IN the design, could be used in an indirect sense to shed light on the designer.
And of course, the question of aesthetics comes in too: your description assumes that the designer is a master engineer. Why not a schoolboy on a lark, a hobbyist, or a class on an assignment given artificial design constraints; or even an artiste?
“Yet you think that by insisting that it matters who made the cellphone, you will discover something. No you wont. Because it doesnt matter. It is incidental to everything else.”
You completely missed the point. My point was that you can ascertain design without knowing anything about the designer. I did not “insist that it matters who made the cellphone.” You are either a careless reader or are not very bright. I don’t really care which it is. I learned a long time ago that people like you can waste a lot of my time if I let them. But I won’t.