(I might submit this for peer review. This is only a summary-version of my argument. To write out all of the things I know about this issue would obviously take up a lot of room, the opening message would be the size of maybe five very long posts.)
I have watered it down. I happen to know it can't be refuted, logically, but here it the small version;
This brings me to the issue of identity/definitions, in argument.
What is the difference between evidence of intelligent design, and something being identified as designed, rather than merely evidenced?
It's when all of the features present in a thing, make that thing what it is by definition, rather than just some evidences of the thing.
For example if I say to you "this is a human hair" it may count as evidence of humanity, but if in totality, it has every feature that makes it a human hair upon scientific examination, then it is a human hair by definition, because your argument changes from;
"If this is a human hair then certain evidence P, it looks like a human hair."
"It looks like one therefore is." - Incorrect - Affirmation of consequent.
"A human hair by identity has human dna, is made from X, is P, is Y, et.c..."
But what is a better way of saying that?
A better way of saying that is this;
"A human hair is a human hair."
This is because all of the features together, according to the law of identity, make a human hair a human hair.
This is called The Law Of Identity. (X is X).
The law can also apply to intelligent design, by asking; "what is an intelligent design by identity?"
So for example, if you were talking to a person, would you argue, "their foot and their speech and their anatomy is evidence they are human!"
No, you wouldn't - you would infer they have all of the features of humanity, which is more than evidence, it means by the very definition they are human. (X is X because all of the features of X make that thing X)
If you are human you have features X,Y,P,Z,B,T,S etc.. (human DNA, sentience, blood anatomy)
If you have features X,Y,P, Z,B,T,S etc, therefore you are human.
This isn't affirmation-of-the-consequent, any more, because the real argument is this;
If you are human you are human.
Peter is human therefore is human. (Correct tautology, which is called The Law Of Identity.)
So then if a lifeform has SOME features of intelligent design it might only be evidence supportive of intelligent design, but if it has all of the features of design then by identity all of those features of design are what make something an intelligent design by definition.
You wouldn't say that someone is only evidenced to be human if they have all of the features of a human being and they walk past you in the street, you would say correctly; "by definition and by identity, they are human."
Lifeforms have all of the features of intelligent design. By definition, they are intelligently designed.
So how do we know what the features of intelligent design are? Sophisticated intelligent designs?
The same way we know what a human is by identity, or a human hair, or a rabbit or a mountain or a tin of beans. By examining what they are to see what makes them what they are by identity.
With intelligent design, sophisticated designs have all of the following features;
Function. (if required)
Solutions to obscure problems innate to the design. (example; wheelspin in cars, is solved by the invention of a differential)
Information storage density
Directed energy (if energy is required)
Aesthetics and symmetry.
One of these alone might only imply/evidence design. All of them together are what intelligent design is, just as all of the features of human make a human.
These features aren't up for debate - they literally are the features in a helicopter or car, or whatever. By example, a car wouldn't have tyres made from jello (correct materials). A helicopter wouldn't have blades made from straw (correct materials). Specified complexity is easily found, the function is destroyed if you re-errange the parts, which shows direct teleology beyond chance. The parts are specifically arranged in order to lead to a function. (specified complexity, function and goals). An eyeball is arranged specifically to give sight, the parts are arranged to give correct function with the goal of sight. It's the same in our helicopter or car, the windscreen wipers are specifically shaped and places to give a function, which clears the windscreen for visibility. (Contingency planning) A contingency is, if you get cut you will bleed to death. Contingency planning deals with potentials. You aren't designed to get cut but if you potentially do get cut, the clotting cascade is a contingency plan. It's the same in a helicopter, the landing gear exists because without it the landing would be spoilt. Or headlights in a car. You don't have to drive in the dark but if you do, you will need light.
Lifeforms have all of these features. According to logical rules, by definition life is intelligently designed and it wouldn't matter if every peer on the planet disagreed, it means NOTHING to disagree with provable deductive reasoning.
The only real argument against this argument is this; "perhaps it appears to be designed but isn't because for example, evolution might give the appearance of design in life."
The problem with this counter argument is that we know of things which really do appear to be designed but aren't, and none of them have all of the features of I.D. by identity.
So we can actually determine if something appears to be designed, because something can't logically ONLY appear to be X and fully be X at the same time. (axiom)
So for example, you can't ONLY appear to be human and also fully be human. A waxwork appears to be human but what allows us to infer it isn't is that it doesn't have all of the features a human has.
In the exact same way we know that when something only has an appearance of design, it can't also be fully designed. For example a natural bridge may look like it appears to be designed from a distance. Upon closer inspection, we can see that because it lacks the true features of I.D, it isn't really designed.
For example the surface isn't made to be flat for walking (specified complexity not present), in some superficial way it matches a true bridge's shape but it doesn't have rails so you can fall off, (contingency planning not present), it is eroding and doesn't seem to be made from lasting materials. (correct materials not present.)
So then to argue for evolution by saying by identity a fully designed organism just appears to be designed even though it has all of the identifying features, is basically to SPECIAL PLEAD on behalf of evolution theory. (special pleading fallacy). It also breaks the law of non-contradiction, for X cannot be fully X and also fully not X at the same time. The law of the excluded middle says that either X is true or it's negation is true. (not X).
By identity an organism is designed, in the same way that by identity a human is a human, you can't also say "but they only appear human", because if they did, then they wouldn't have all of the features a human has. For example a waxwork of a human appears human, but it can't also be human if it only appears it. Nor can you say, "Betty is a human but only by appearance". Nor can you say, "life is fully qualified as being defined as designed but only appears to be."
Furthermore there are no direct tests to find out whether evolution could create a feature such as the clotting cascade. That is to say, it is a posteriori (hindsight) argument, which is circular reasoning, to proclaim that evolution did create the cascade, "because it must have, because the cascade exists!" This doesn't actually demonstrate whether evolution was the cause.
On the other hand, what evidence do we have as an induction, that things with all of the features of intelligent design, are usually designed? An induction of millions of examples. The cause of intelligent design, is 100% of the time, intelligent designers. To GRANT that evolution somehow pulled it off, is really a circular argument, you must predict what evolution can potentially create, not just GRANT that it did create everything we find in nature, as though a contradiction in nature is a small matter, that an intelligently designed form wasn't intelligently designed. To grant something which contradicts the law of non-contradiction so readily, seems like a tenuous belief more than an argument, but design is proven.
(I have many more counter-arguments stored in my head, collected over the years, I can counter all of the complaints about design but I would only go through all of that if I really was writing a paper. Some arguments against ID are; the referee fallacy, "if I was the designer I would have designed X better", the argument of conflating design with the designer; "this doesn't evidence God, this is an implicitly religious argument." But of course, my argument stands whether you argue God or don't, the construction of an eyeball can be examined at any time, so it isn't a fantasy when I state it is constructed for the function of seeing, it is a fact of reality, religion really is not an issue here, so any talk of religion is to basically muddy-the-water, so as to cloud the issue. Religion is extraneous, a syllogism is only judged by the premises and conclusion it contains, not any assertions that are not claimed or even mentioned. What/Who the intelligence is, is a matter of belief.)
DISCLAIMER; As a paper for review this wouldn't be put forward as such, as a scientific argument. It is not a scientific argument just because it consists of scientific facts, but it isn't pseudo-scientific either. It isn't religious because the argument has no religious assumptions and the conclusion is only that life qualifies as intelligently designed. But the best description of this argument is that it is a deductive argument for intelligent design. I proclaim that it is a sound argument, even if peers THINK they have refuted it, they will likely be unaware that the problems they raise don't truly compromise the argument, which is directly factually inferred.
To qualify to peer review my argument; The peer reviewer must understand deductive validity at least, and score at least 93% on this logical validity test, (my score was 93%, I got one question wrong because I am human, which always makes room for one question wrong.) Secondly on this logical deduction online game I scored first place and it has been played 26 thousand times. To show deductive acuity, the peer reviewer must score at least 6.2 on this game which shows you can deduce with acuity. If the peer reviewer can't do this, it shows s/he may not qualify to understand the logic I have used in my paper. You must have a high knowledge/ability in and critical thinking, any bias such as annoyance so you reject the paper, is highly unobjective! Rejecting the paper because evolution is accepted by science, is also fallacious, an argument's validity and soundness doesn't depend on what any theory states, only the arguments present are salient, not other theories and what they state, and who believes them, that is not how an argument is judged to be sound and those types of thoughts are illogical and extraneous!