But the main point is that you don’t need an explanation for an explanation in order for the intial explanation to have any value.

If I walk out to my car in the morning and notice that the gas cap is removed, a hollow tube is running from my tank to the ground and that there is a small spill of gas on the ground directly under the gas cap I can be quite certain that someone just siphoned my gas tank. I don’t know who performed the act, but the explanation stands that an agent performed the deed.

Of course we know they were caused by shoes, because he just told us they were “shoeprints.”

If, on the other hand, I am in remote wilderness and I see a series of small depressions in the ground, a more reasonable conclusion would be that there is a bear nearby.

Just saying: one shouldn’t assume what one is trying to prove. When considering potential evidence of whether the Earth was designed, one should reference the specific phenomena, and delay categorizing them as evidence of design until that point has been satisfactorily demonstrated.