RAZD, in response to your post, I will put out this additional reading material, which obviously you have the freewill to undervalue for your own reasons.
"what makes something designed, anyway? Can we determine if lifeforms are?" So to look at what a scientific theory theorizes, to the contrary of "design", is another undertaking. You might then think, "you dismiss the whole of what science says about it?" But that's not my argument either, I have said some things about science in this following blog entry; http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/isnt-rejection-of-evolution-rejection.html
No, what I mean to say, is not that your points aren't merited, but rather to say that if we asked as to what makes a well cooked cake, then to then discuss a very famous chef, or the history of cooking, would be extraneous to the logic of the evaluation.
'What makes something designed?' Is the question. We are evaluating that specifically, without mentioning evolution.
All of the elements of a design make something a design. (Z)
X has all of the elements of a design,
Ergo X is designed. (Z)
(Disclaimer: you are right to then ask questions, such as, "what about none of the elements or a few?" but that opens a very great can of worms, I am only addressing the fullness of design, so to speak.)
Firstly, my first premise, "all of the elements make something a design", is a truism. It is sound because we have studied something that is actually designed, and those elements make something "designed", so if something has all of those elements, we can conclude it is designed, because those elements are that which makes something designed. Here is an equal analogy; If I am every element that makes a human, then I am reasonably a human. (Truism) (Law of Identity, X is X)
"X" Has all the elements of design, this premise is formally correct, as it qualifies itself, but the premise is false or true depending upon whether X truly does have all of the elements of sophisticated designs.
So the syllogism is sound, as long as the evaluation is sound. I will go through the elements of that which make something designed. (notice that it is pointless to question the elements, because they are only inferred from looking at ACTUAL, agreed upon "designs" anyway, such as cars or watches. (all people agree these things are designed.)
So let's come across that watch in a field again. WHY is it a design? What are those elements that make it so? Some investigation gives us the answers.
Precise Construction. Construction, where materials are manipulated into strange, specific, orderly relationships.
Artificiality, (so to speak). What I mean by this, is that materials that don't ordinarily have any natural use, have been taken and used. Manipulated into having a purpose that is intended for something.
Contingency Plans. When something exists that has complexity, problems, or potential problems arise, from that things very existing, so then if a problem arises, we see contingency plans put in place to deal with the problem.
Viability. This element includes contingency plans but also the solving of engineering problems. The two aren't quite the same, an engineering problem is a complex problem that arises, that could thwart the design itself. A design has viability, it works if all problems have been solved, and plans are in place.
Aesthetics. Usually sophisticated designs have an element of aesthetics. We see a Ferrari car is very attractive to the eye, or a butterfly or ladybird or flower or Peacock's tail. Usually there will be symmetry and colour. Aesthetics is an element of design because it's like the final touch, there is an Artistic element to design.
Wisdom/Intelligence. Whether it is a sophisticated code, such as binary code in computers, or whether it is an ingenius idea, to solve a very difficult problem. This much is obvious, when we look at a design. When we look at a differential, look how cleverly the simplicity of the meshing gears are, ultimately a simple arrangement, yet it took a very clever idea to come up with.
Conceptual/ Imagination. When we look at designs, we know that someone had to firstly have an idea, or imagine something that they wanted to achieve. When we OBSERVE a designed thing, the ultimate goal of the thing, SHOWS the idea behind the thing. To look upon a helicopter, we know just by looking at it that someone had to have an original idea, they imagined achieving a machine that could fly. We don't need to anything other than to see the concept in action, because with designed things, that is what we're seeing, someone's imagination, displayed.
Design itself, seems quite simple. This is misleading in that complicated science might seem to "trump" something simple-science, but really there is no argument that says that the answer must be a complicated, natural and scientific answer. Notice science is used here, operationally, just not in the same manner as tenuous, historical, inductive science. Darwin pitted a historical theory against the fact of design. But circumstancial evidence doesn't trump deductive, incontrovertible fact.
To say, "an eye is designed to see" is not a claim, it is a description of a fact. That's all.