I will ask you, specifically, what possible observation would be inconsistent with design. You have given several observation which are consistent with the idea of design, and while that is necessary to lend credence to an idea, in order to be scientific, the idea must be totally inconsistent with at least one (and preferably many more) theoretically possible observation.
To give examples of what I mean, I will use evolution. I am not a biologist, so these are pretty simple examples. It is theoretically possible that a new species of life will be found that utilizes some other substance other than polynucleotides for a genetic material. Evolution theorizes that all organisms are genetically related. Two organisms that don't have the same basic genetic material are obviously not genetically related, so the idea of common descent would be falsified by such an observation. Evolution also states that complex modern organisms arose from simpler ancestors. It would be theoretically possible to find, for example, a fossilized modern rabbit that was reliably dated to an age of 1 billion years. If this were found, it would contradict the idea that modern organisms came from simpler ancestors, since 1 billion years ago, only the simpler organisms should have existed. The theory of evolution also makes more specific predictions which could be falsified without falsifying the basic idea. For example, evolution predicts that transitionals between birds and mammals should never be found since birds and mammals both have reptilian ancestors. It would be theoretically possible to find a fossil that has characteristics of both birds and mammals. None of these observations (and many, many others) has ever been made. It is not logically impossible that any or all of these could happen tommorrow, but the fact that this has yet to happen is what gives credence to evolution and makes it scientific.
Design advocates, on the other hand, are very careful not to say much of anything about the designer, probably for fear of being accused of pushing religious doctrine. The problem with this, however, is that without some idea of the limitations of the designer, it's not possible to come up with falsifying observations that are analogous to the ones given above for evolution. For example, if we assume that God is the designer, then there are no limitations on what He could have designed. Therefore, there are no observations that would be inconsistent with the idea the everything is designed by God. This idea is equivalent to creationism, and that is the reason that creationism is not scientific. Specifying some things that the designer would not or could not have done would lead to a scientific theory of design. So far, I haven't encountered anyone who's willing to make this leap, however.
what observations disprove design?? good question, some answers are on my homepage..
some obvious results of a disorderly origin:
1 odds are no life exists
2 if life exists odds are not for long
3 if life exists very long odds are no species arise
4 if species exist odds are they won`t self-observe
easily disproved by observation..
yes i know evos will incant `wap sap fap` because they are religious zealots but alas these are exactly what you ask.. those who invoke the sap deity have no right inquisiting id
other results of disorderly origin:
5 chaos theory would find true chaos, instead it finds orderly chaos
6 young earth impossible, instead yec is hotly debated and censored
7 multiple life origins impossible, instead created kinds hotly debated and censored
8 spontaneous origin impossible, instead abiogenesis remains still totally unworkable
hope this helps..God bless you