" Not exactly. Ideally tests support or falsify, but not necessarily."
If they don't support or provide evidence against the theory, they are not tests.
" There are statements which are verifiable but not falsifiable. In that sense, something can be testable but not falsifiable."
Then they are not verifiable. If something is not falsifiable, there is no way to verify it.
" I think ID has a very low bar to meet since there really are no scientific theories for the origin of life."
The status of other hypotheses for the origins of life has no affect on the scientific status of ID. All other hypotheses can be falsified, and ID will not be any better off. That being said, abiogenesis has much more evidence to back it than ID, which has nothing.
Merry Christmas!!
"If they don't support or provide evidence against the theory, they are not tests."
Perhaps not good tests. String theory makes certain predictions for which tests have been proposed and will be carried out in the near future. But these tests, if they fail, will not falsify string theory because the failure may, in this case, merely indicate that the method of detection is flawed, but not the predictions.
But the point is not worth fighting over. A good test is one that offers the possibilities of either supporting evidence or falsification as the outcome.
"If something is not falsifiable, there is no way to verify it."
Now that is simply wrong. Here is an example from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Some_examples
Non-falsifiable theories can usually be reduced to a simple uncircumscribed existential statement, such as there exists a green swan. It is entirely possible to verify that the theory is true, simply by producing the green swan. But since this statement does not specify when or where the green swan exists, it is simply not possible to show that the swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.
"The status of other hypotheses for the origins of life has no affect on the scientific status of ID."
Most philosophers of science would disagree. Competing theories and hypotheses provide alternative explanations. When one has been supported more extensively by empirical evidence it tends to be given more credence.
"That being said, abiogenesis has much more evidence to back it than ID, which has nothing."
You are saying there is supporting evidence for abiogenesis? Where? What qualifies it to support abiogenesis? What particular hypothesis is supported?
Merry Christmas to you too. I am calling it a night.