That captures my point exactly. If they are the same argument then they are both faulty.
Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it. We observe that natural processes (e.g. natural selection and random mutation) produce matching molecular and morphological phylogenies in living species. We then find that larger species groups also fall into these same phylogenies, which means that the evidence is consistent with natural processes.
Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point? You might as well argue that since God can plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes that we can't use forensic science in courts. As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.
The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence?
Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is. The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.
I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer.
When you make ID/creationism unfalsifiable, as you have done, then you have ceased asking questions and are refusing to refine the answer.
I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural.
If species were separately designed then we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy since there is no reason that a designer would force its designs into a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if species evolved from a common ancestor.
Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?
As described above, yes. If we suddenly saw nearly all species suddenly appear in the fossil record just 10,000 years ago, then I think we could conclude that there is a high probability that we are in a designed system of life.
My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.
If I may make a suggestion, your first step should be to ask yourself what it would take to prove ID/creationism wrong. That is what any good scientist would do. What would it take to disprove ID/creationism when it comes to the question of the origin of species?
From what I have seen so far, you seem to have taken the position that a designer can do anything and produce every possible observation. If that is the case, then I don't see how your belief can be examined.