No you couldn't and that's the whole point.
You may believe that God designed the universe, and you may very well be right. But once the universe is in motion, the only way science can operate is to assume that day to day affairs are not tampered with, and that ordinary processes and phenomena work according to initial laws and conditions.
A lot of IDers like to cite the existence of a modern jetliner, and ask how do you suppose it came into existence. When you answer this question you are drawing on knowledge and experience. Obviously the first time isolated tribes saw an airplane they had no frame of reference from which to answer.
The same is true of how biologists go about answering the question of how species come into existence. Someone with no grounding in molecular biology, or someone who believes that physical processes are tampered with on a regular basis, will have a different conjecture from someone who believes the laws of nature are constant over time.
The assumption that the laws of nature are constant is the heart and soul of science. You can't do science without believing that the phenomena you observe are the result of regular and untampered processes. You might well be the world's greatest lab technician, but as a researcher you will never be able to ask original scientific questions.
More than that, you'll either run like hell or grow fangs when threatened by historical conscience and other non-dogmatic features of human existence.
No you couldn't . . .
Well golly gee. Where's that list of scientists who flourished and contributed to science without bringing creationism to the table yet believed deeply in a Creator? One does not have to make the assumption God is not involved in the universe to study it. C'mon. I thought you were smarter than this.
The very fact that the laws of nature are constant over time testifies quite logically to intelligence and design. The only issue science does not need to address is WHO is behind it all. That is for religion to address. But to assume that SOMEONE is beind all this intelligence and design is not at all unreasonable. No, it is far more unreasonable to assume all this intelligence and design came about of "it's own volition." Egads. That is but a frightful absurdity.
But if someone in the scientific community wishes to propose an experiment or test to show WHO is involved in creating the universe, then who the hell are you or I to tell them to shut up? You speak as if the bounds of science must be limited. I think that is an unwholesome thing to bring to the table of education.
It is my prediction that they would NOT assume the airplane built itself without any guidance whatsoever from an intelligent agent. Is that too "anti-rational"? They would not have to be educated in the slightest about what makes them fly, etc.
If it we're me out in the sticks I'd ask, "What the hell is THAT?" And if I ever got the chnace to see it up close I'd be asking questions (and picking it apart if the bulder allowed my curiosity to go that far) only to find out, by golly, that it was intelligently designed.