This is an assumed or implied question underlying the whole creation vs evolution debate.
The most obvious and honest answer is that science should and MUST allow truth. It must allow whatever explanation best explains the evidence to the highest degree possible no matter whether we like or do not like that explanation.
Intelligent is the certainly the best explanation of the existence of the billions of forms of life we find on earth or whereever else it may be found. Especially since that life is always highly adapted and complex. More especially since that life has all the well known, well documented , well tested earmarks of design.
Moreover, the very fact that macro-evo theory is incapable of showing the genetic, mutational pathways by which the speculated evolution is supposed to have occurred – even for the smallest of life forms, not to mention DNA and RNA – is ample reason for rejecting Darwinism as empirically demonstrable truth.
However, I want to point out the truth about this question based on another well know scientific theorem.
Godel’s incompleteness theorum is probably a reasonable answer to the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorem#First_incompleteness_theorem
It’s implications basically say that first-truths, or axioms, (truths that need no proof and cannot be proven but are ture) do indeed exist.
imply put – it is one thing to be provable, and a different thing to be true. Truth outruns provability. It is possible to be wrong yet without being provably so. There are statements which cannot be proven or disproven, but which can still be true or still be false.
So the answer to the topic question is YES. As creationists and IDers have always known long centuries before Godel 😉
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow
Science does and always has assumed certain metaphysicals and they cannot be avoided without also avoiding answers to questions about nature.
Let’s put it this way : If the life forms on earth were in fact specially designed and created by some super intelligence would methodological naturalism (which is what Darwinism is) be able to detect this? The obvious answer is no since all supernatural explanations are ruled out by default under that inadequate world view.
Walter ReMine discusses this in his book “The Biotic Message”. I haven’t read it yet and I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on Godel’s theorems but it sounds very useful for Intelligent Design proponents, as ReMine states.
Check it out…there’s a gazillion sites out there on Gode’s theorem.