Dembski:
Indeed, who sets the rules of science? The very demand that science explain in terms of natural rather than intelligent causes is itself applied selectively. Whole branches of science already presuppose that features of the natural world can display unequivocal marks of intelligence causation, thereby clearly signaling the activity of an intelligent designer (cf. anthropology, archeology, and forensic science). Nor need the intelligences inferred in this way necessarily all be human or even earthbound. Consider, for instance, NASA's SETI program (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) in which certain radio signals from outer space would with full confidence be interpreted as signaling the presence of an extra-terrestrial intelligence. There are reliable criteria for inferring intelligent causes. Certain special sciences already admit as much. Why then refuse their admission into biology?
The answer should be obvious. Scientists (and philosophers of science) set the rules for what is science. This is as it should be. Consider if someone presented a text in Hebrew and claimed it as a previously unknown book of the Bible, who would decide if this claim is true? Who would decide if it were really the Word of God or not? Certainly not scientists, but rather clergymen and theologians. Defining science should be done by people who study it. The difference between accepting intellegence in things like SETI and in biology is that in the biology case, by accepting intelligence you are assuming the very phenomenon you are trying to explain. You are saying that intelligent human beings exist because of the design of some other intelligent being. This then begs the question of where did the other intelligent being come from. You either get an ad infinitum regression, ie. some other intelligent being number 3 designed intelligent being number 2, and intelligent being number 4 designed number 3, etc., or you arrive at God. The first case is absurd and the second is not science. Science, by definition of its methods, seeks testable physical explanations for physical phenomena. God certainly is not a testable, physical explanation. Indeed, that's what faith is all about, believing in God despite the fact that there's no physical evidence for such a belief. I am NOT arguing that intelligent design cannot possibly be true. Not all truth comes from science. I am simply arguing that ID does not belong in a science journal (or a science classroom for that matter).
I would dispute this in the general case.
Was the human knee joint designed by an intelligent creator? Prove or disprove.
Was the human eye designed by an intelligent creator? Prove or disprove.
Was the crystal structure of Hornblende designed by an intelligent creator? Prove or disprove.
Just saying "I can't imaging how it could have happened otherwise" doesn't cut it.
Sorry, but the job of science is to find natural causes. This is what science does. It is the definition of science.
Possibly a time will come when natural causes cannot be found. I had a high school teacher that said it would happen within twenty years. That was fourty years ago.
In the meantime, you cannot do science without attempting to find natural causes. You can write pamphlets, but it isn't science. You can attempt to find errors in scientific publications. That would be science, but it isn't research. Finding errors in other peoples work is a fundamental activity among all scientists. It's no big deal.