Isn't that like saying physics is not science because it explains everything the same way: "Atoms and subatomic particles behave in ways explained by physical laws." I mean, really, do you think there is nothing to be learned in a universe that was created to be as it is by a superior intelligence? Would you also feel there is nothing to learn from a lecture prepared by a scientist smarter than yourself?
The idea that an Intelligence has created what we see does not diminish in the slightest the value of the knowledge we stand to gain by better understanding those things and how they behave.
ALL science is this way. "IF" a superior hypothesis/theory comes along which explains ALL CURRENT PHENOMENA explained by the previous theory AND, explains or predicts the explantion of phenomena NOT currently explained, then the new hypothesis becomes the "leading contender".
But that's just it! ID doesn't deny the existing and previous learning, it simply re-frames it in terms of causality. The facts don't change, they are understood in the context that observable forces and matter are under the control of something much more than chaos. The truth is still the truth. The only thing discarded is the worship of chance and chaos as creators.
Sure---when there has been about a century of study of such biological systems ACROSS MULTIPLE SPECIES using the tools of todays molecular biology. It's simply too early to say that biological systems are "irreducibly complex".
...conveniently postponing the final answer beyond your lifetime. ;-)
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste more time trying to get the point across. Go away and bother someone else with your pseudo-philosophical bullshit.