Nope. In the cases of transgeneic species, we *do* know who scientifically created it. Man.
Likewise, the DNA evidence points to an intelligent sequencing of data, of an intelligent genetic data processing engine, intelligent genetic programming, data storage, etc.
Attempts to go beyond what the above evidence points to (e.g. great leaps to what the designers were wearing on any given day) not only exceed the scope of available evidence, but serve no useful scientific purpose. Such attempts merely attempt to strangle a debate.
The question of who the designer is serves no useful purpose? So in other words your science extends to a certain point then, like in the comic flow chart, you draw a cloud and write in "Here a miracle occurs" and leave it at that. That's ridiculous and that certainly isn't science. Science is all about trying to find answers, not purposely ignoring the questions. It would seem to me that looking at the ultimate mystery, who the intelligent designer is, and saying, "I'm not interested" would strangle debate far more than trying to find the answer.