I can name one, but it goes back more than 150 years. It was proven by design inference that the orbits of planets must be circular and not elliptical.
Science is not about perfect proofs, but it is chiefly about observing, testing, recording, and reporting results. The inability of the human mind perfectly to apprehend the universe is no reflection on the object of contemplation where purpose and/or design are involved.
Circular orbits at one time may have been assumed, yes, but not proven. It remains a proper object of science accurately to assess the course of the heavenly bodies. It also remains axiomatic that heavenly bodies, like the laws of nature in general, will behave with a consistency demonstrative of intelligent design.
Bottom line: Science cannot happen without intelligent design. I'll leave it to you and others to argue otherwise, but I hardly expect any forthright language as to what you, or they, consider axiomatic in regard to the presence of creation and its ongoing demonstrations of life, order, and purpose.
Wasn't circularity an assumption rather than an inference. I don't see how design implies circularity.