Perhaps -- but the real essence of my question is, can science detect "the presence of engineering" (for lack of a better term) in an observed phenomenon? Or is science instead hard-wired to assume only naturalistic causes?
By the standards you've laid out, it almost seems like you're saying that science cannot detect the "presence of engineering" in any case. But that doesn't seem right, as we can often recognize the difference between naturalistic and man-made causes.
As I mentioned before, in the case of biological development it's possible to test the capabilities of science in cases where we know for a fact that design was involved. The question is, can a scientific approach lead to the correct conclusion that design was involved?
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining biological observations. If that's the case, then scientific proclamations against intelligent design are likewise unreliable. (It's ugly, but that's what a null result would imply.)
OTOH, if we find that scientific processes are capable of discerning the "presence of engineering," (as I suspect to be the case) then it is no longer possible for scientists to claim that ID is "not testable" and "unscientific."
Either way, it appears that there are some holes in the current scientific "party line" on the ID hypothesis.
The key point is that Intelligent Design is a valid hypothesis. It's valid, because we know not only that it occurs, but also have a pretty good sense of the methods by which it might be accomplished. Because of that we should be able to propose specific tests to detect those methods.
The question then becomes: is it scientifically valid to reject the ID hypothesis out of hand?
I don't think it is scientifically valid to do so, although as we see on these threads the "representatives of science" do precisely that.
How is that different from this statement:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining weather observations.
or this one:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining astronomical observations.
or this one:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining geological observations.
I would say yes, anything that follows the form of science we would call naturalistic. But that is terminological only. Consider the concept of energy or an electomagnetic field or a quantum state. We think of these things as naturalistic but they are pure inventions of the human mind. Just because we're so used to them doesn't make them real (phlogiston and aether come to mind as failed scientific inventions) but they are naturalistic.
Now I do not claim that it is impossible to construct a scientific theory of design. However I would say that, should some theory of design be wrestled into the necessary explanatory form, it will be a naturalistic theory. That would be a curious result, and I suspect that you will find it unsatisfying.
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining biological observations.
Hmmm. It's the old "if it doesn't explain everything then it doesn't explain anything" ploy. Because Newton's theory of gravitation doesn't explain the observed precession of Mercury's orbit, it's not a reliable method of explaining gravitational phenomena. Right.
But that doesn't seem right, as we can often recognize the difference between naturalistic and man-made causes.
I think that's a little off topic; we're concerned with designed vs. not designed (and that's not the same thing as naturalistic).
Certainly we can, in certain limited domains, reliably infer human design. But how do we do it? Well, it's because of lots of experience. We "know" that these objects are intentionally created by people. But go outside these limited domains and the sense of human design becomes unreliable. AIDS is biowarfare against Africans doncha know. Trying to use this demonstrably unreliable sense outside of human design seems folly to me.
The key point is that Intelligent Design is a valid hypothesis.
No, the key point is that ID isn't a scientific theory. It isn't because it does not have the right form. If you IDists want it to be accepted as science, it is up to you to do the work to make it so.