The same way one tests for the presence of planet Earth and the universe. Or is it unscientific to test for such a thing? Is it unscientific to assume such things exist without testing for them? Has it occured to you that design might just be a "given" under which science is capable of taking place?
The same way one tests for the presence of planet Earth and the universe.
Ummmm ... is there a dispute regarding the presence of the earth? (Ditto the universe). Your answer, and I have to do some guessing here, as usual, is that the presence of design self-evident. To which my answer is, "No, it isn't self-evident."
Or is it unscientific to test for such a thing? Is it unscientific to assume such things exist without testing for them?
Depends on what you mean by "them." I would say it's unscientific to assume design where no proof of it exists.
Has it occured to you that design might just be a "given" under which science is capable of taking place?
Nice trick question. "Design" is a given under which science does take place. Science is "designed." It does not follow that life is "designed," or that the "design" of life should be assumed. But that's been pointed out to you countless times already. I have no expectation that one additional time will make the least difference.