Not at all. I've said that there are generally recognized features of intelligent design. Enginers and architects take design classes, and get graded based on these features. You think their grades are bogus? If you take a course in C, and spend hours writing your own subroutine instead of making a call to a more efficient library function, and you get points knocked off for that, is that an arbitrary, subjective, capricious piece of grading?
Modern electronics would have been incomprehensible to people even 100 years ago, and certainly to people 1000 years ago. (They're still incomprehensible to most people, including me, even today.) The technology of 100 or 1000 years hence may well be equally incomprehensible to us. Would it be "mysticism" to claim that future technology could achieve things (including the creation of life) that is not comprehensible to us now?
Alas, you're creating a hypothetical where I asked for a real example. And even your hypothetical is dubious; had we been presented with a transistor in 1890, from who knows where, do you really think we couldn't eventually have worked out how it works? After all, we've pretty much figured out the mitochondion, and that's orders of magnitude more complex than a transistor.
And even before we had our present understanding of the mitochondrion, we understood in broad terms what it does, and we could make statements about its limitations, its efficiency, etc.. So, I won't claim to completely understand the genome, but I can state, without much fear of being wrong, that the defective gene that prevents humans from making vitamin C, but which is still present in our genomes, is a bug, not a feature. Your claim, in contrast, seems to be that the great Bill Gates in the sky may have included it as a feature, but hasn't bothered to document it.
(Is it clear yet I'm a Mac user?)
I gave you a clear example -- the thing you're typing on right now. It would have been incomprehensible to the "contemporary rational processes" available to the people of 1000 years ago. And yet computers are clearly not "mystical," they are obviously created. The methods and processes of a hypothetical designer could in the same way be so subtle and advanced as to escape our rational assessments. Again: this line of thought does not work.
After all, we've pretty much figured out the mitochondion, and that's orders of magnitude more complex than a transistor.
Uh huh. You see the irony in your statement, surely. To equate the figuring-out of a designed object, to the figuring-out of an allegedly randomly-formed object, simply points out the problem with your argument. What is it that would tell you the transistor was created? And what is it that tells you that the mitochondrion was not?
This is fun, but I gotta go. Maybe we can pick it up tomorrow.