Not in the physical universe, no. It is a machine that would go of itself. The intentional design, I believe, rests at a higher level, one of mathematics. The universe as we see it, and perhaps even the laws of physics themselves as the universe obeys them, are but one instantiation out of an infinitude that would conform to the Divine Will.
It's a question of epistemology vs. metaphysics. From God flows math, from math flows physics, from physics flows the physical universe. God wouldn't be so unsubtle as to reach past math and physics to press his thumbs into the clay, that we might trace his fingerprints. Reason dictates that there are no such seams in Creation.
D flows from C, which flows from B, which flows from A. Therefore, D must bear the stigmata of A. Since we don't directly perceive A, how would distinguish, in D, what is from A and what is not from A? From whence would we derive the algorithm?
Why is mathematical order designed ? Isn't this just the ID position regressed a couple levels? Why is it not just "what is", so that the felt resonance between the mind and the elegance of an equation is simply the affinity between "what is" and "what is"? In other words, an identity?
Kroneker was a bit more niggardly: "The integers were created by God; all else is the work of man."
And Einstein even more so: "the series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences."
But if He exists, what substantiates the argument that He would not reach past math and physics, unless it would be an argument derived from this side of the God/math interface? Unless you believe in revelation, which I presume you don't.
If we, from this side of the god/math interface, form an argument about the probable or necessary behavior of god who is on the other side of the interface, are we not assuming that we are perceiving his signs and extrapolating into an un-perceived realm -- in other words, we percieve the marks of design. We are not formally distinct from the Psalmist, who saw in the heavens the grandeur of God.
It's the problem of god-talk. What makes language about God different from gibberish, unless it is some kind of extrapolation from here to There, or prior communication from There to here? If we extrapolate one level, like the simple peasant does, or we extrapolate three levels, like you do, we are not formally different.
And if He did "reach past" math and physics, what would He reach with ?.
If he reached past math and physics and thus left an imprint on "clay", would he not have to use an instrument susceptible to math and physical measurement to even make an imprint on matter? So how would we distinguish between an imprint made by god and an imprint made by....what? Parts of the machine which "run by themselves"?
I don't mean that it is not possible to conceive of a God who could reach past math (obviously, we both just did it) but it isn't possible to conceive of knowing the specific reaching act, unless you simultaneously posit an organ of knowledge in addition to our sense organs, or posit a physical instrument in God's hand, the epistemological question infinitely regresses from there.
BTW, I loved your response.