To the contrary I gave three examples of how science tries to detect design and how it works quite well.
I'll run with your SETI example both to affirm some of things you are suggesting, but also where you are going wrong when talking about the universe as a whole.
You're essentially correct in that looking for design involves looking for examples of engineering (or deliberate manufacture). Taking a more reductionist view, the actual detection of design is a form of pattern recognition and pre-existing knowledge. In order to recognize something as engineered you need first a base line with which to make that determination. Often times that baseline involves comparison to other things.
In the case of SETI, astronomers do look for narrow band signals. The reason they do so is because the only known source of narrow band signals are artificially manufactured radio transmitters; e.g. the kind humans make. So they search for narrow band signals (in comparison to other types of signals) based pre-existing knowledge of human radio technology and what those signals would look like. The assumption being that wide-band signals are natural and therefore not a product of intelligence.
Now if I said to you,*all* signals are the result of deliberate design, suddenly SETI has no basis for signal detection any more.
This is the problem with applying this thinking to the universe as a whole. If
everything related to the universe is a product of design, what are you comparing it to? The answer... is nothing.
Consequently, when you say this:
So yes there is a clear basis for making the claim that we observe design in the make up of the universe. I know that troubles you but its a scientific fact nonetheless.
Not only is it not a scientific fact, but you have no fundamental claim on which to base that that follows your previous arguments for the detection of design.
The problem is that militant atheists
As an aside, this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, militant or otherwise. That's a complete red herring on your part. This is simply about a fundamentally flawed argument.