Two opposite world views, two accounts of origins, one guided by naturalism, the other by special creation. Only one world view is an accurate reflection of what God actually did, the other has to be wrong. So how do we find out?
Can science adjudicate on this particular question?
Well, we know that science is limited to the presumption of natural unguided causes and is unable to investigate any other possibility. So science is not in a position to adjudicate, neither can science offer an objective verdict on the matter because science is subject to naturalism. Science can only and will only present one side of the story.
Coming back to our Jack and Jim scenario, given that both detectives are entrenched in their respective positions, Jack believing the man with the knife in his back died and accidental death and Jim believing it was murder. Is Jack in a position to adjudicate objectively on the evidence which supports a murder? No, because he is convinced the man died an accidental death. Will Jim offer an unbiased opinion on Jacks version of the events. Of course not, this is why these issues are taken to court where an impartial judge sits outside and above both sides of the story, weighs up the evidence for and the evidence against before arriving at a verdict. Or in some cases, a jury of ordinary people are called in to objectively and without bias hear both sides of the story and come to a verdict.
So when deciding on the case of Creation via the agency of unguided, natural processes or intelligent design, science is not the judge or the jury because science is only presenting one side of the argument. Science is the defence lawyer arguing the case for naturalism, defending itself from religious intrusion, rejecting all assertions of intelligent design.
So the answers to these questions are outside of the scope of science. To expect science to do anything other than defend its own point of view is akin to going into court with the expectation that the prosecuting lawyer will defend the accused.
Science only presents one side of the story, science only investigates one point of view, science does not consider the other side of the story.
But is there another side to the story? Surely if the combined weight of the scientific community has not found any evidence of intelligence or design in creation that means there is none and the issue is settled. The contemplation of another side is futile because there is no other side.
This is a valid question, science does not devote much time considering arguments for a flat earth because such arguments are a waste of time. So are the arguments for a special creation in the same category?
Is the absence of scientific evidence for design a reflection of scientific truth, or is the absence of scientific evidence for design a reflection of scientific limitation?
Let us run with assertion that a lack of scientific evidence to support special creation via intelligent design is confirmation that God used unguided natural processes to bring about life on earth.
This would mean that God also uses the process of methodological naturalism when he makes things, which means that he created the world in a way that made it look like he did not in fact create the world. It means he removed all visible traces of his power and divinity and made himself invisible through his creative acts. It means that in reality there are no visible traces of the fingerprints of God anywhere in the things he has made which could be used to hold men morally accountable. In other words, it means an all-powerful Creator has limited himself to a creative approach which just happens to conform to the self-imposed philosophical world view of science.