No. I said it is not unreasonable, or unscientific, to infer a designer when we see something that is designed. In a good many cases we may safely assume an object is intelligently designed, and we can do so without being "unscientific." In almost every case the evidence is indirect.
Nor is it unreasonable, or unscientific, to extrapolate from there and infer a designer in cases where "nature" is organized and performs functions as complex as, or more complex than, human implements.
Who would disagree with that? It appears you don't understand the focus of the discussion. The problem is not in inferring a designer from something that is demonstrably designed, but in determining what is and is not truly designed. Please address the correct problem.