No, that would be positive evidence for intelligent design. Nobody on the ID side has ever put forth positive evidence for ID. In fact, Wm. Dembski, in putting forth his purely negative theory of the Explanatory Filter, has refused time & again to speculate on either the identity or the design goals of the designers - so-called "designer-centric" questions. He prefers to limit discussion to "design-centric" questions.
Unfortunately, limiting ID-based biological research to the supposed markers of design contained in biological systems is doomed from the start: Absent clear positive evidence for design, you can't infer design unless you implicitly make assumptions about what the object was designed for - i.e. what its design goals were. And this automatically implies statements about who the designers were. On a philosophical level ID cannot even get started unless & until they're willing to engage the evidence on those terms.
Amazing.
Evolution has no clear evidence of a goal - heck evolution has no goal. Why does evolution get a pass on your little rule but other theories do not? What is that all about - data analysis is different for different forms of data meaning some assumptions are made for some data but not for others. jennyp, can I require you to prove evolution could not possibly be created by a designer? And only after you provide proof will the theory of evolution ever "get off the ground"? If not, sounds like you are working a double-standard.
Finding evidence of design in no way requires proof of an objective or purpose or understanding of a designer - science can only go where the data points.
Design means it did not happen via happenstance - no more, no less. And you are wrong/delusional/deceptive/just confused if you think evidence of non-happenstance is anything more than proof of non-happenstance and some other requirements must be met before you can even analyze evidence of non-happenstance.
Example(fictitious): we find that life on this planet was seeded by a life form from another planet via a meteor. this is proof life came from design - a design from another planet (it is even possible life on this planet was designed by life on another planet and that life came to be via happenstance). We don't know the goals nor do we know the designer - all we know is it didn't happen via happenstance. Using jennyp's logic we would have to reject this evidence entirely because we have not proved the goals or the designer. Starting to see the flaws in your logic?
Let me illustrate your flawed logic in another way: police find a dead body (stabbed in the back). That is proof of a murder. But they don’t know the reason for the murder nor do they know who did it. Using jennyp’s logic, the police would have to ignore the murder because they cannot prove a murder unless they know “what the person was murdered for”
Evidence of design is just that – evidence of design – and it has no more requirement to prove the “goals” as does evidence of happenstance.
BTW: something can conceivably be designed without purpose or goals - that alone renders your following statement null and void.
jennyp: you can't infer design unless you implicitly make assumptions about what the object was designed for