[bobdsmith]

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.

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.

[r9etb]

How is that different from this statement....

Other than the fact that my question was general and yours are specific, there's not any particular difference.

The question is still the same: is "science" capable of discerning whether or not intelligent agents are responsible for a given phenomenon. In cases where we know the answer is "yes," it should be possible to test for that.