Are you stating that Darwin hypothesis was sufficient for the paradigm shift in science that now excludes all telic arguments? Natural Selection caused the paradigm shift?
It has been said that Natural Selection “… is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it makes a pretty metaphor. It originated in a categorical error parading as an analogy. For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon, when it is nothing but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes of mortality presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the intelligence and powers of discrimination necessary to make actual choices, i.e., 'selections'. As such it may be accurately summed up as a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the godless.”
If the universe and humans are the happenstance result of a Blindwatchmaker, than “Natural Selection is the Blind Gameskeeper (he works on the Estate of the Blind Watchmaker), and he kills everything he catches. Natural Selection is a synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the stick.”
But… But… This also could be due to the ‘noodly string theory’ and all the appendages (or universes) which formed due to the ‘noodly string theory’ ; )
But for ID to challenge natural selection, it must propose an alternate history that would expect to find some different kind of evidence. Your hypothetical insulin gene is a step in the right direction, but to be science, you would need to predict a specific finding and give a reason why you expect to find it.
In other words, you would need to predict the finding of something completely out of place, but which makes sense to your designer. To do this you need to specify something of the means and motives of the designer, and those means and motives have to explain everything in biology -- bunnies and herpes -- the whole nine yards.
If you can't specify the means and motives of the designer, how on earth do you expect to infer design?