That's true -- no one claims it isn't possible. Until, that is, it's put forth as a hypothesis. And then it becomes, somehow, a "non-scientific" position. And therein lies the complaint: that the unarguable validity of the hypothesis is dismissed out of hand.
Verification of the hypothesis is, of course, another matter. However, the "anti-ID claim" is that, essentially, it would be impossible to detect design. Perhaps -- or perhaps not -- but the claim itself is completely unscientific: is it really impossible to detect it, or merely rhetorically convenient to make the claim?
The fact, however, is that design is a perfectly valid hypothesis, precisely because it has been demonstrated.
If the hypothesized designer is powerful enough, it is impossible to make any prediction based on the design hypothesis - anything goes.
For example, say that a genetic marker is found in both domestic dogs and domestic cats. The ToE allows the prediction that the same marker will be present in all species of dog, all species of cat, all species of bear. A designer could have put the marker anywhere.
The point is, the ToE puts severe constraints on what can be expected to be found. Unless some limits are put on the hypothetical designer's powers, there are no limits on what can be expected.
This problem doesn't arise in archeology, since we know, broadly speaking, what people can and can't do. In SETI searches, they're looking for a narrow-band carrier wave, since again, broadly speaking, we know that natural processes can't produce them.
But until someone actually shows that evolution is incapable of producing some structure (the flavor du jour is "irreducibly complex") there is no basis for assuming that it can't, and that some unspecified "intelligence" must have been involved.
No, not even then.
And then it becomes, somehow, a "non-scientific" position. And therein lies the complaint: that the unarguable validity of the hypothesis is dismissed out of hand.
Wrong, it already is an unscientific position but for completely different reasons which have been presented to you on numerous occasions.
Verification of the hypothesis is, of course, another matter. However, the "anti- ID claim" is that, essentially, it would be impossible to detect design. Perhaps -- or perhaps not -- but the claim itself is completely unscientific: is it really impossible to detect it, or merely rhetorically convenient to make the claim?
You cannot determine if a pattern was designed only from the information that is intrinsic to that pattern itself. What you need is additional information i.e. a model of the designer.
The ID "model" of the alleged designer is one with infinite degrees of freedom which makes it compatible with just about any observation. In other words, from a scientific point of view it is worthless because it doesn't provide any additional information.
The fact, however, is that design is a perfectly valid hypothesis, precisely because it has been demonstrated.
Not if the alleged designer is some unknown entity with unknown abilities and limitations, who uses unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons.