It's possible that you misunderstood my point, which is simply that we humans (designers ourselves) tend to think of things in terms of how we might design them.
What is certain, however, is that I don't understand your question.
And when you're done, explain to me why the putative designer so often made completely independent designs for functionally very similar parts in different groups of animals, while simultaneously using similar designs for functionally very different parts within the same group.
You probably make things, right? If so, haven't you ever achieved the same functionality with a different design? I know I have. Likewise, I have also used a similar design feature to perform very different tasks -- just as you probably have.
At root, your questions reduce to quibbles about design choices, rather than an argument against the possibility of a designer.
I am curious. What observation would actually DISPROVE intelligent design?
In that case I agree.
What I'm claiming is that intuition, when it really is valuable and reproducible, is generally a distillation of a set of empirical rules-of-thumb that can be formulated rationally. So if we can really detect design by intuition, we should be able to describe a rational process for detecting it. Dembski and his acolytes have so far failed to do so. You probably make things, right? If so, haven't you ever achieved the same functionality with a different design? I know I have. Likewise, I have also used a similar design feature to perform very different tasks -- just as you probably have.
Sure. On the other hand, I generally evaluate the two designs, and either pick one, or if they both have merits, settle on a logical set of rules for when to use one rather than the other. Why would I choose one wing design for all birds - from hovering birds to soaring birds to birds that don't fly at all, and from big birds to tiny birds - and then another design for bats, from big fruit bats to tiny myotis bats, from bats that eat fruit all day to predatory bats, and even vampire bats that suck mammalian blood? Form should follow function.
Of course, you could argue he did all the birds on day 4 or whatever (too lazy to look it up), and by day 6 he had a better design, which he used for the bats. Except there are some things he did with the birds that look way better than what he did with the bats - hollow bones, the sternum, the feathers. So maybe he, contrary to the fave creation myth on FR, did the bats first. But then, why not incorporate that superb echolocation system he cooked up for the bats for the nightjars (birds that fly around at night eating insects).
Look closely at the 'design', and very little of it makes sense. It's much less plausible if you look at the living world in toto. You could, I suppose, invoke a brilliant but extremely forgetful, or quixotic, or maliciously playful designer, but when I propose that a class on ID should look at these aspects of the supposed design - Loki as designer, if you like - all of a sudden the proponents of the supposedly scientific nature of ID throw up their hands in horror and use words like blasphemy.
That is, BTW, the reason why I don't accept the separateness of ID and creationism. The former is a Trojan Horse for the latter. It is possible that a few people like the Trojan Horse for its own aesthetic qualities, and not because it's full of hostiles, but IMO they're unwitting souls being taken for a ride.