You're the one with the problem, though. I have handed you a case of undoubted Intelligent Design -- genetically engineered, insulin-producing bacteria.
In doing "science" to determine the source of that phenomenon, you apparently demand that an ID hypothesis is out of bounds. Well, OK -- that's precisely the kind of "protected orthodoxy" that this article describes. And in the example above, it automatically rejects what turns out to be the correct answer, that the bacteria were genetically engineered.
If one were to sequence the DNA of this bacterium, the signature of genetic engineering would, I suspect, be characterized in terms of "sharp edges" around the insulin-producing gene.
Now it's your turn. Tell me how you're going to get the right answer without invoking an ID hypothesis.
The I.D. hypothesis is untestable by Science because it posits an unknown agent acting for unknown reasons using unknown powers and abilities to somehow make biological innovation possible, when it seems to be quite possible on its own without any intervention (as in the case of nylonase bacteria and citrate plus e.coli).