Who designed the ID designer(s)?

This might be true, but it is of no real consequence. Chemistry is just specialized physics, and physics can provide an answer to where atoms come from.

A person walking in the snow caused the footprint. The mechanism of creating footprints in snow is walking in snow. I still don't see a difference. Perhaps you could tell us how they are different?

It would be possible to decsribed the compression of the snow without making direct reference to it being a human foot.But I guess that would be asking 'what compressed the snow?'Rather than 'what made that foot print?'The second case we assume it is a footprint rather than anything else.

I agree that the walking could be referred to as a cause. I guess the difference is that they don't refer to the same things at once.So if simply walking is being referenced as the mechanism, then the cause would be what was walking.Edited by Energy, : clarity

Hi again Energy You're welcome. Here's another: If you use [qs=Taq]Causality and mechanism ... [/qs]
and
[qs=Dr Adequte]Quite. Every three-year-old has discovered ... [/qs]they become: and And it's a little less confusing. Correct - we could know about the footprint maker without the footprints, and we could study how footprints are made, however the existence of the footprints could also lead us to ask who made the prints.The Laetoli footprints come to mind:
Laetoli Footprint Trails | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins ProgramNote that the mechanisms of how footprints are made has been part of the research into the Laetoli footprints and the discussions of which type of hominid made them (bone configuration, stance, etc).Enjoy.