Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

This appears to be faulty logic.First you discount anything that "we have everyday experience with" and then you include "life".
We have everyday experience with life.
Your question "Do you believe that your analogy holds true for something that we have no experience with." is not relevent to life as we have experience of it.
Jar's analogy may or may not work with alien technology, but we are not talking about alien technology.Life is not "alien technology" or "something that we have no experience with", therefore your argument doesn't hold.Edited by Panda, : formattingEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

Correction: the designer in some form or fashion [did] indeed exist and [was] responsible for life as we know it.Else your logic would be:
Was there a designer of the radio? Yes.
Who was the designer? Guglielmo Marconi*.
Therefore Guglielmo Marconi exists.
Which is obviously false.You cannot argue from "There was a designer." to "A designer still exists.".
The fact that Guglielmo Marconi once existed is just an interesting footnote. Have you tried answering those questions in relation to (e.g.) radio?
Who designed the radio? Guglielmo Marconi - historical footnote.
Why did he design the radio? No-one really knows or cares. He probably needed a radio.
How did he design the radio? The actual process that happened in his head? No-one really knows or cares.The actual physical design is all anyone cares about and that is there before our eyes.
Knowing who the designer was (or why he did it) does not help us understand radios. *I realise that Guglielmo Marconi didn't "design the radio" but for clarity it will do as an example.

An intervening god is not just a designer.
You have moved the discussion from: "Is there any value to the concept of a Designer beyond a historical footnote?"
to: "Is there any value to the concept of a Designer and a manipulator beyond a historical footnote?"
That is a very different question. I notice that you skipped the second half of my previous reply that addressed your insistence on the importance of 'Who'.
'Who' is not useful; only 'What' is useful.Since you are so certain that 'Who' is useful, can you give an example?

The only reason that the 'Who' would be important is because of the intervening, not the design.
The OP asked: Is the designer important?
You are answering the question: Is the intervener important?
If you want to conflate the two, then that would be a different question to what was being asked. What you are actually asking is "What if life was designed by a god who was immortal and omniscient and omnipotent and took a keen interest in humans and spoke to some of them and punished those he didn't like and gave eternal life to those he liked and changed things whenever he wanted, and, etc....?"If you want to massively expand a question and leave behind any resemblance to the original question, then that would leave you with a different question to the one being asked.

If you make up some fantastical example that has no basis in reality, then I suppose it could be possible to argue that the designer's identity is important.
But, back in reality, the designer's identity doesn't matter much.Can you think of a real-world example where knowing a designer's identity is useful?On a side note:
ID is meant to be science.
If you start introducing the supernatural into the equation then that would not be science.
What you are doing is exactly what ID proponents deny is their intention: using ID to re-label religion as science. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Give it 100 years and it's just an historical footnote.I suspect that the whole of creation is now out of copyright. {abe}I think that would come under jar's OP criteria "Product Liability suits".Edited by Panda, : typosEdited by Panda, : abe

People choosing the identity of the designer and then claiming it matters is what already happens.
The question asked by jar was to address this obsession with who the designer was (directed to IDists because of their focus on having a designer). If a being designed all life and then died, people would carry on regardless.
"But who designed the designer?" they would ask.
"You cannot disprove my god!" they would cry.
Very little would change.People are interested in their god because of the other things that their deity offers (e.g. eternal life).
No-one would worship a 'god' of design only.
And people happily worship gods that didn't design. Well, the OP is based on the question "Even if ID was true, is there any value to the concept of a Designer beyond a historical footnote or in the case of Product Liability suits?" and this thread is in the 'Intelligent Design' forum. Devil's advocaat?! Again you mention religion! Edited by Panda, : No reason given.