Archaeologists infer intelligent design from rocks routinely to determine whether a stone which is shaped in a particular fashion, is actually just a stone or perhaps a tool used by a human.
We don't just "infer" it, we spend a lot of time working out those details and learning the subject. Some archaeologists spend their entire careers studying lithic technology.
In graduate school one of my professors had a room full of various "rocks" picked up from streambeds, alluvial fans, and other areas which can produce items that appear to be artifacts. By studying both the natural ones and the manufactured ones he, and many other archaeologists, are able to come up with guidelines for determining whether particular items are "designed" or not.
Study some archaeology and you might learn something. That might take a few years though. Archaeology is not always as easy as it looks on TV.
Where are the studies and guidelines established by "
cdesign proponentsists" to do the same thing?
What we see is the exact opposite of science. Instead of science we get catechisms, and instead of empirical evidence we get opinions. When we ask for evidence, and for rules to differentiate between design and non-design, we get either gibberish or silence.
What we don't get from creationists, and what has been asked for many times on this thread, is scientific methods for distinguishing design from non-design.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.