Some of us are fans of alternative history. There is a whole genre of literature on what might have happened if something had happened that didn't. Some examples:
What if John Wilkes booth had missed?
What if the Nazis had won World War II?
What if Gore had won the 2000 election?
What if Monica Lewinsky had taken her dress to the dry cleaners.
What if the Tartars had not stopped their attacks in Europe?
What if Oswald hadn't made it to the top floor?
With respect to science, it seems as if those who claim that scientific evidence has established something, there has to be an alternative history of science that would have established the opposite.
So, when people like Dawkins say "The evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design", then are they not presupposing the existence of an alternative history of science in which the evidence concerning evolution reveals a universe with design?
But if this alternative history had taken place, would the design inference have also been dismissed as methodologically unacceptable, and an example of IDiocy?
Heads I win, tails you lose.