Everything that exists is designed by that standard, in which case you don't really need an empirical method for determining design, I suppose. I don't really see what that claim gets us, but there you go.
Consistency, intelligibility, non-randomness - these are all part of design.
I don't know how you'll show consistency, but the following passage is very much designed:
qANQR1DDDQQJAwLxeFFT1Q63omDSTAEDwf11pfcZBSq1TXbjXcb7hPCBsQn1dsqj
vseZfwN7IxgD8miKcz8DFQpcIZXGPYsVLPIfh6brX3itzVS4qBgxjgiQiKZ7swmG
pIU=
=iEu9
Good luck with the intelligible, non-random part.
I'm sure the passage you mention is designed, not only because you say so, but also because it is open to observation. As far as its ultimate meaning goes, that would be a difficult thing to determine, but I hardly think it to be a matter of supernatural, or superstitious, nature to infer intelligent design as operative in its generation.
Doubtless if the code behind the screen you are looking at were placed in front of most people, it would appear as anything but intelligent design.