You are confusing science and engineering. ID "theory" has no explanation of human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques. Feel free to prove me wrong by making a deductive argument from an assumption of design whose conclusion is human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques.
To the contrary, I specifically addressed the differences between science and engineering in my previous post. It is quite true that ID has more in common with engineering than a "science" of undirected natural processes. That has no bearing on the truth or falsity of an ID hypothesis, however.
ID "theory" has no explanation of human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques. Feel free to prove me wrong by making a deductive argument from an assumption of design whose conclusion is human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques.
Your challenge makes no sense. After all, a process of intelligent design is precisely the explanation for why human insulin can be produced by certain strains of bacteria and yeast.
It would seem that if the processes of science are unable to yield the correct answer in a situation like this, then "science" should perhaps be a bit more humble in its claims.
And if the processes of science are able to yield the correct answer, then the claims that "ID is not testable" are false.
Either way, there is a gap that "scientists" in this debate are unwilling to face.