You're basically demanding proof of a designer before we could possibly hypothesize design in any given case. That's very convenient to the anti-ID cause, but it's not logically necessary for the proposal and testing of the hypothesis in a specific case.
And thus, again, I'll bring up my example of the insulin-producing bacterium. We know that ID is the correct answer for that case (and we know of no other insulin-producing bacteria), so it provides a good basis on which to test the claims being made for science in this debate.
First, is it possible for science to get the correct answer at all? I tend to think the answer is yes -- the specificity of the gene in an otherwise unremarkable bacterium would seem to be a good first indication that there is something interesting going on.
Second, addressing your comment, is it possible for science to get the right answer without having first to discover the engineer who did it? Again, I think the answer may be yes, because (based on my reading of the techniques used to create insulin-producing bacteria) there are certain things that must be done to make the gene actually express insulin -- and those modifications would be a marker for an intelligent agent.
Now, it may well be more difficult to do that if a specific "design event" were followed by long time periods in which the property was then subjected to random mutation.
Your question is self-answering and trivial. If we know the cause we can detect the phenonemenon. If not, we can't. Such a formulation adds nothing to our quiver.
If you postulate a hidden cause you must specify enough about the nature of the cause to make it predictive. Otherwise it's indistinguishable from saying the spirits did it.
You are implying that it is possible to determine the history of something from its current state or configuration -- in the absense of any knowledge of causative agents. this is impossible.
Yes, although I wouldn't call it proof. We need evidence that this designer with the required capabilities exists (or existed when the object under scrutiny originated) before we can hypothesize design in a meaningful way.
And thus, again, I'll bring up my example of the insulin-producing bacterium. We know that ID is the correct answer for that case (and we know of no other insulin-producing bacteria), so it provides a good basis on which to test the claims being made for science in this debate.
Yes, in this case we know that humans inserted that particular gene but only because the work of those scientists is well documented.
First, is it possible for science to get the correct answer at all? I tend to think the answer is yes -- the specificity of the gene in an otherwise unremarkable bacterium would seem to be a good first indication that there is something interesting going on.
Again, only if we have enough evidence of the existence of this designer. Otherwise, simply from the mere existence of such a bacterium we cannot conclude that it was designed.
Second, addressing your comment, is it possible for science to get the right answer without having first to discover the engineer who did it? Again, I think the answer may be yes, because (based on my reading of the techniques used to create insulin-producing bacteria) there are certain things that must be done to make the gene actually express insulin -- and those modifications would be a marker for an intelligent agent.
No, it's not. If someone discovered such an insulin producing bacterium back in the 1950's when we didn't have the capabilities to directly manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, he could not discount the possibility that this bacterium acquired this trait solely by natural means. Additionally, insulin is only specific wrt humans.
If it were some other unremarkable bacterium that produced some other organic substance (i.e. one that is not required by the human organism) would you simply conclude that it was made by an extraterrestrial species that visited earth some time ago and who needed this substance just as we need insulin?
Further, the correct answer isn't worth a thing if there is no way to verify its correctness. I can propose all kinds of wild hypotheses and maybe one of them is the correct answer to some question (i.e. our universe was created as it is just five minutes ago) but without a method of verification it is worthless even if it happens to be correct.
So science isn't about finding the correct answer to everything but to show how observed phenomena could have happened naturally. Now, while science may not be able to show that an unspecified agent wasn't involved, it can at least demonstrate that it wasn't needed.
Also, even if ID produced the correct answer in your scenario I can think of other scenarios where it gives the wrong answer. Thus the problem of ID (the one that postulates unspecified designers, i.e. relies on mere design) is the false positives and the difficulty to indentify them as such.