Not really. But at the same time, if it turns out that science is manifestly incapable of giving a correct accounting of the origin of a given phenomenon (i.e., it cannot detect that somebody made it that way), it would obviously be an unreliable explanatory method for that class of phenomena. We could not trust a scientist who says "nobody made it," because the scientist by definition has no way to know that.
But again: I think that, as a general rule, science probably is capable of detecting the signature of intelligent agents on a given phenomena.
Certainly we can, in certain limited domains, reliably infer human design. But how do we do it? Well, it's because of lots of experience. We "know" that these objects are intentionally created by people. But go outside these limited domains and the sense of human design becomes unreliable. AIDS is biowarfare against Africans doncha know. Trying to use this demonstrably unreliable sense outside of human design seems folly to me.
Well, yes, but in rejecting a "design hypothesis" in biology, you're essentially making an argument from ignorance. But we know, for example, that humans do genetic engineering, and thus in some cases we know what to look for if we make a design hypothesis. There is no intrinsic barrier to gaining "lots of experience" in recognizing the hallmarks of design in biology. If that's the case, it would be folly for a scientist to reject a design hypothesis, especially in cases where know what to look for. Your example of "detecting biowarfare" is an excellent example: if confronted with that scenario wouldn't it be irresponsible for a scientist to reject a design hypothesis?
Yes really. You were quite clear - if science can't infer biological engineering then it can't explain biological observations. I took your sentence, changed the domain without changing the logic or relationships, and the result was clearly dumb. This is one technique of demonstrating fallacious arguments.
science probably is capable of detecting the signature of intelligent agents on a given phenomena.
And I have challenged you to demonstrate this for us. I have explained the form necessary. Why won't you do it?
in rejecting a "design hypothesis" in biology, you're essentially making an argument from ignorance.
I have been very clear over several posts. I reject ID as science because it does not have the proper form. Once that hurdle is cleared, which you have conspicuously failed to do although I have challenged you to do it several times now, then we can compare it to other theories using other criteria.