The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

Just as a side question, what would something that is not designable look like?  If you can't specify an observation that would show the hypothesis false, then you don't have a falsifiable proposition, but just a vague idea. 

Yeah, that's something I've been discussing with Belacqua. And I've made it analogous to things like "dark" or "off." These are things described as the absence of something else (Dark means not light, off means not on). Likewise the absence of designability is as valid of a proposition as the absence of graspability.

Even if we don't know what it would look like, we still know what it means at a rudimentary level. For example, we can take the perspective of a beaver and say "this dam is designable by a beaver" and "this car is not designable by a beaver." So our question could be formulated as "Is there something not designable by an intelligence?"

If you don't know what it would look like then in what way have you presented an observation which would be falsifying?

Vague ideas and knowing what you mean don't feed the bulldog. Btw, as a springboard, Heidegger explored these same issues in Being And Time, if you're looking for ideas.