How is that different from this statement:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining weather observations.
or this one:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining astronomical observations.
or this one:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining geological observations.
Other than the fact that my question was general and yours are specific, there's not any particular difference.
The question is still the same: is "science" capable of discerning whether or not intelligent agents are responsible for a given phenomenon. In cases where we know the answer is "yes," it should be possible to test for that.