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.
No, and that is my point. Asking for a hypothesis, or scientific test to detect design is like asking for a hypothesis to detect the existence of planet Earth.
Depends on what you mean by "them."
By "them" I mean planet Earth and the universe. Nothing cryptic about it. If the earth and the universe were not designed, science would have no way of exploring it. Deal with it. Explain it away. Amuse the thinking man with your response. Besides, I'm sure you were there when it was all laid down and can explain the lack of an intelligent designer most intelligently yourself.
"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.
Why not? More people than scientists have figured as much, namely that where there is design, there is a designer. Not only so, but it has become increasingly apparent to many that life itself follows rules and patterns that are most easily attributed to design. Scientists who desire to push the notion that order and life can arise without the aid of an intelligent agent should pull their heads of the dark places where they are prone to looking and list themselves for hire in the philospohy and history segments of school cirricula.
It boggles the mind that evolutionists have the audacity to foist their philosophy upon science while demanding creationists supply hypotheses regarding the orderly nature of the world and the universe. If anything it is testimony to sheer laziness on the part of academia that evolutionism's ass wasn't kicked into the philosophy room a century ago or more. Somehow the NEA and its ilk must have gotten the better of us.