When critics claim that research is not permitted to detect design because that would stop science, it is they who hold science back.
I would argue that a chronology of exactly what was predicted when is not dispositive as to whether a positive argument can be made.
Richard Dawkins predicted that “a large fraction” of our genomes has no function, because, “The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less.”
Functionality for junk DNA is prevalent, and was successfully predicted by intelligent design.
This explains why many researchers, who are fully on board with evolution, nonetheless ignore Graur’s advice.