On pages 148 and 149 of his book Signature in the Cell author Stephen Meyer discusses design and a distinction between origins and operations science suggested by Charles Thaxton. Origins, be they of life, the universe or consciousness, are unique historic events. Unlike a physical process, which is observable and continually repeated, such as the replication of cells (and many other processes) origin events cannot be studied as they unfold. Thaxton would describe cellular replication as an example of operations science. If a physical process is observed and there is much about it that remains unknown we can be confident that with time the unknowns will give way to knowledge. Operations science is cited frequently by ID critics in exchanges with IDists albeit not with that label attached.
Don't ever attribute an intelligent cause to an operations science event about which ignorance currently abounds. Yet the admonition is a straw man because IDists, for the most part, would concur that observable, repeatable phenomenon yield to knowledge of them given time. But if critics lump origin issues in with operations science and advance a gap argument they make a fundamental category error for science does not show a record of having conclusively resolved origin issues. To the contrary origin issues show themselves stubbornly resistant to investigative resolutions. Incidentally, that blunts amateur debunking arguments as it points to the limits of "professionals" which are fashioned by the limits of nature's revelations and empirical methodology.
Stephen Meyer notes "that the great scientists who had proposed design hypotheses during the scientific revolution had typically done so to explain the origin of some system or feature of the world…" Take that gap accusers.