r9etb seems to have no clue as to what has been done or what is being done in molecular biology. Every time a gene is studied in detail it yields a pattern of inheritance that fits what would be expected from other lines of evidence and reasoning.
When do we get to zoom in on the designer's serial number, as in Blade Runner?
Probably correct. Nevertheless, that does not seem relevant to the topic question: can science get the right answer when we know that the answer is ID? The logical consequences of an answer either way are pretty significant to the topic at hand.
Every time a gene is studied in detail it yields a pattern of inheritance that fits what would be expected from other lines of evidence and reasoning.
And thus the usefulness of the example I've been using. What sort of conclusion would a scientist draw from a bacterial genome that included a gene for the production of human insulin?
Well, we know for sure that the eye is intelligently designed. We have evidence on film that the designer is a little Asian guy who "just does eyes".