But it will be characterized as such whether it is or not.
Seriously, let's try a thought experiment. Tomorrow a research team identifies a structure or process that appears to be irreducibly complex. They do all their homework, they have peers review the work and everything adds up. Ten years later, hundreds of researchers have tried to find a way it could be less complex and still work, and they've come up with nothing. Commentators legitimately compare it to a court case where there's a lot of evidence against the accused, but there's this one piece of evidence that makes it impossible for him to have comitted the crime.
Do you really think that Richard Dawkins is going to say, "Well, maybe there is a God" or even say "I still don't believe there's a God, but it seems likely that much of science has been going down a dead end street for the past 10 years or so"? Or will he just say, "This is the God of the gaps, it's not science, eventually we'll find out what allowed this structure to evolve, it's all part of the wedge strategy, etc., etc., ad nauseum."
You see, the problem is that even if evolution is not religious in nature, we have spent so much time telling people that evolution is beyond proven and that it's the core of modern science that it is now too big to fail. It's too embedded. If it were admitted that it has been falsified (or even admitted that an apparent falsification is the research of a real scientist and not a creationist plotter) it would be like shouting "science is bunk" from the mountaintops. It wouldn't be true that science was bunk, but so many scientists have made the science "brand" about Dawkinism that the PR effect would be similar.
“We have no physical mechanism to explain it..... must have been God” is not the scientific method. Never was. Never will be.
No, Dawkins and the Creationists who want to conflate evolution with atheism have attempted to “brand” evolution as an atheist enterprise.
The scientists working in Biology are mostly people of faith such as myself.