That presumably includes instances where one might attempt to constrain the putative designer to only inscrutable motives and methods....
If you want to place constraints on the designer then you'd better say what they are and why you've chosen those constraints, then we'll be able to judge if the designer may have been fiddling with our experiments.
One may approach this by the simple expedient of pointing out that we humans have the ability to understand (at some level) many of the processes of nature. As applied to ID, one could point out that we understand the practical purposes satisfied by various traits and phenomena. Furthermore, they are similar to the optimization approaches that we, ourselves, apply. The fact that we can understand these things directly, in terms of their practical applications, would argue strongly against the idea of inscrutability on the part of the hypothesized designer.
Very true and absolutely nothing to do with ID.
Recall that the comment was made in response to your claim that a designer must be completely inscrutable. But because inscrutability is not a necessary condition for a designer (for example, humans designers don't meet this standard), pointing to the "scrutablility" of what we see around us has quite a bit to do with ID, particularly in dismissing your attempt to impose inscrutability.
So tell us what ID hypothesizes about the designer.
Empty lack of response noted.
One may approach this by the simple expedient of pointing out that we humans have the ability to understand (at some level) many of the processes of nature. As applied to ID, one could point out that we understand the practical purposes satisfied by various traits and phenomena. Furthermore, they are similar to the optimization approaches that we, ourselves, apply. The fact that we can understand these things directly, in terms of their practical applications, would argue strongly against the idea of inscrutability on the part of the hypothesized designer.
As I say, if you want to start limiting the designer as to motivation and/or powers, you'd better start saying what those limits are. Behe et al carefully avoid making any such statement, on the contrary.
Recall that the comment was made in response to your claim that a designer must be completely inscrutable. But because inscrutability is not a necessary condition for a designer (for example, humans designers don't meet this standard), pointing to the "scrutablility" of what we see around us has quite a bit to do with ID, particularly in dismissing your attempt to impose inscrutability.
The inscrutability of the designer isn't my claim, it is IDs claim. ID places no limits on the designer. Are you proposing a new ID in opposition to Behe et al, or are you going to get them to agree to limit the designer.