Well, let's look at the history of the atom and you tell me, tacticalogic.
The atom was originally conceived, by Democritus, ~400 B.C., as the fundamental building block of the universe. It was imagined to be a uniform, homogeneous, indivisible, and extremely teensy physical object, not observable to the human eye. The important point here was for over 2,000 years, the atom was believed to be not deconstructible into more basic parts: it was "ultimate." It was the type of object that Newtonian mechanics could deal with as capably as it did celestial bodies — which was probably where people got the idea that the Newtonian system describes the "universal" and "fundamental" laws of the universe. That is, ultimately physics is "the" most fundamental and universal law of nature, and biology is merely a "special case" of it. That was, and in many cases still is, the basic presupposition of many working scientists and theorists today.
The interesting thing is that, in the mind of Democritus, the idea of "atom" could arise in the first place — especially since there was no possible way for such a crittur to be observed, either directly or under the technological capabilities of the time, and for a very, very long time thereafter.
It wasn't until J. J. Thompson discovered the electron, in 1897, that the "classical" atomic theory began to unravel. No longer could people plausibly speak of an atom as an indestructible body, for it seems to have had "parts" after all. Niels Bohr proposed an atomic model that looked like a miniature solar system, with a central body (the then still undefined nucleus), and its satellites (the electrons); but quickly realized that this model couldn't reflect the real physical situation. For under the then-known dynamical laws, the electrons would soon enough lose their orbits to the inexorable gravitational pull of the nucleus, and come crashing down into it. Such a model had no "stability."
The model's shortcomings drove him to entertain quantum explanations; now Bohr's atom is, "visually," little more than an ambiguous smudge, an amorphous blob. (Though the satellite model of the atom is the one most people think of when they think of an "atom" nowadays.) Then it was discovered that the nucleus itself had "parts." And some of them are composed of quarks — which have not until this day ever been "isolatable" for study as "discrete" objects. Plus all kinds of new particles were discovered, including such exotics as anti-particles....
And so on and so forth; science progresses on the insights and experimental designs of creative observers. It seems obvious to me that intelligent observers and designers are at the root of scientific theoretical progress.
It seems this is not the sense in which you understand the term "intelligent design." Yet both intelligence and design seem indispensable to the conduct of science.
Question: If intelligence and design are indispensable to science, maybe that might tell us something about the structure of the world in which science operates?
Just asking....
It might. Starting with the the observations of a molecular biologist that life is "irreducibly complex", and thus requires departure from normal methodology in order to investigate it, does that same premise apply to the molecules themselves. Why does the departure only start when the molecules are incorporated into a living organism, and what are the consequences if it does not?
The comment that was in reply to seemed to amount to an argument that because the methodology used to investigate something had to be intelligently designed it was evidence that what was being investigated must have also been intelligently designed.