If ID is true, it would be untestable
Which would move it outside the perview of science. However, the only reason that the term ID and it's associated concepts has been brought up is to try to make "creationism" sound scientific enough to get it into the classrooms around the separation of church and state.
So your idea that ID is not testable would not be acceptable as a useful idea to either side of the argument.
All you could do is prove that nothing else is correct.
And as you note, this isn't really possible to do in a definitive way.
No-one can prove that God didn't make everything we see and is right now laughing his Holy Spirit off at us for trying to understand how He did it. Since we can not, this conversation is comepletely rediculus, each trying to disprove eachothers arguements.
I await either someone's proof God didn't make everthing or that He did.
I agree. If God is taken to be as most Christians take Him then no one can or is attempting to prove that he doesn't exist.
However, what most of us are here for is to show that the idea of "scientific" creationism is false. This is from those people who aren't willing to stick with saying God did it but also saying
how he did it. Depending on what it is they are stateing they are clearly wrong.
E.g., the earth is old, the flood didn't happen, living things evolved to their present state are all the only reasonable conclusions to draw. You are entitled to believe that God choose to create the universe to unfold this way. If you wish to say that God fools us to make it look like these things are true but they aren't you are entitled to that belief. However, most theologians and Christians will become somewhat purple in the face disagreeing with what you are saying about a prankster, dishonest God. If you wish to say that these things are not true then you have to be prepared to defend your views if you wish them taken seriously. They have been shown here and other places to be indefensible.
Common sense isn't