I could submit such proposals till I'm blue in the face, but what would effectively put an end to it is detailed, testable reconstructions demonstrating that such structures can occur in a gradual, step by step Darwinian process, in which case Occam's razor would suffice nicely to finish off a design inference, or at least render it superfluous. One doesn't need to invoke intelligent agency where a naturalistic, undirected mechanism will do.
As far as the methodological approach to the epistemological dilemma of a putative Designer tweaking the Petri dish, I've never heard of anyone not doing an experiment or suggesting it invalid because of lack of direct knowledge or certainty of possible motives/powers of any designer. That type of Humean certainty is not a necessary part of a scientific design inference anyway.
Cordially,
How can it not be? Please explain why the Designer would definitely not intervene in whatever experiment one constructs that is related to proving or disproving ID? It is you who is proposing an interventionary tinkering Designer. How do you know when the Designer is tinkering, and when the Designer is not tinkering?
Incidentally, your politeness is a breath of fresh air. after the rantings I am facing on another thread.
Kind Regards