Granted. But the creation of such a test does not require me to trace things back to the beginning of the universe, which was the assertion to which I was originally responding.
I'd really like to see such a test, especially one doesn't define the parameters of the designer.
An interesting comment, given that you're responding to an example where we already know that "design" is the correct answer. Suppose it is impossible to design a scientific test that can produce the correct answer. In that case "science" has nothing whatsoever to say about this debate except "I have no idea whether it's true or not." (Which is definitely not what "science" is saying now.)
However, I think it probably is possible in some cases to design a test that would detect evidence of design. I don't believe that it's always impossible to detect the presence of design, because I know that we can recognize all manner of things that humans design.
Given that, you're reduced to an metaphysical and epistemological argument about whether a non-human would approach design problems the same way humans do. A scientific test would simply dispense with that uncertainty by assuming that non-human design would be recognizeable. It would be bad science to avoid the hypothesis altogether because you a priori assumed that there'd be no point.
Note that failing to find an alternate cause is not proof of a designer in and of itself.
True. But then again, that's not where we'd be with the real-world example of intelligent design I provided. Instead, we'd have two possible causes, and the scientific task would be to choose the better one.
You asked me previously what I meant by supernatural. Since the post that question was a part of was already answered in a manner that I agreed, I saw no point in replying simply to address what I thought was a rhetorical question. However, our current discussion seems to require it to be addressed. My use of 'supernatural' meant no more or less than 'beyond nature'. Man, by the way, is a part of nature. So is technology. I've been inferring from your line of reasoning that you fail to draw a distinction between 'within the scope of nature' and 'naturally occurring'. Technological objects that are a creation of man do indeed have a designer, but that designer (man) is himself a part of nature. Furthermore, not a single technological advance or item created because of them are beyond the laws of nature.
The upshot of all this as it applies to ID is that no matter what obfuscation regarding man-made design is applied, it does not open the door for the allowance of science to evaluate something not pertaining to nature, i.e. supernatural.