I'm getting the feeling that a part of detecting design is having a large body of evidence that is carefully examined and re-examined to identify features and patterns indicating design.
What I've been pointing out on a different thread is that you can't really detect design unless you know the mechanism of design.
In the case of stone tools, we can only determine if they are designed because we know how rocks smash together and what happens.
If I were to present you with a material you'd never seen before you couldn't determine if it was natural or manipulated because you'd have no concept of how it could be manipulated.
I think the ID proponents have been ignore this KEY aspect of the debate.
If you can't tell me HOW design was implemented, you can't possibly detect whether or not it was implemented.
The not above about prime sequences in the DNA is a good argument against what I'm saying, however it's still just a mathematical pattern - I'm sure similar patterns can be found in seashells or crystals or butterfly wings, etc.