Nope. When looking at the evidence of the human insulin gene, we can justifiably hypothesize an agent without regard to his capabilities. What you're describing is an attempt to define the characteristics of the agent, based on the fact that certain evidence points to his existence -- which is a much different problem then trying to determine how a bacterium came to be producing human insulin.
Humans certainly aren't capable of fortelling the future and knowing exactly what adaptations will be beneficial in the future.
That's clearly an improper characterization of genetic engineering as it's practiced today -- which is primarily driven by achieving specific, beneficial, and future goals. Your complaint seems to be that the current state of technology is geared toward "the next step," and does not exlpicitly include longer-term goals. But that's simply the current state of technology and commerce; there is no reason to assume that advances in the field will not include longer-term predictability in the future?
If Humans were attempting to engineer systems as flexible and as adaptive a living things, they would turn to genetic algorithms.
Well, OK -- so you've answered your own complaint, haven't you? Humans are already attempting to engineer living things from scratch, based on an algorithmic approach; moreover, the Human Genome project seems to be yielding something of an inverse effect, in that decoding the genome apparently shows the presence of "genetic algorithms," including levels over and above the strict DNA sequence. In either case, an "algorithmic" approach to genetics seems within reach (albeit perhaps not particularly soon).
We have no examples of a human gene winding up in a bacterium through descent.
Viruses have the capability of injecting genes, and bacteria exchange genes. These are capabilities.
When you speculate about ID you are speculating about history. (Assuming you are not just blowing smoke.) When you speculate about history you are making assertions about the capabilities of historical agents.
No. My complaint is that claiming something to be an artifact implies that you have some examples of known artifacts with which to make comparisons. This is how archaeology works.
I'm saying that given examples of organisms known to have been engineered because we know their history, and unknown organisms believed not to have been tampered with by humans, that common descent with small, inherited, incremental change is the better fit to the data.