Whoa, there. Those are not my standards, and do not attribute them to me. You made that stuff up, not me.
It is up to the person testing the hypothesis to show whether it is correct or incorrect, and to do so in a replicable fashion. Case in point would be the Miller-Urey experiments into abiotics. The hypothesis was that the early atmosphere on Earth had a strongly reducing atmosphere, and that organic molecules could form from interactions between chemicals in the atmosphere, and in the sea.
That hypothesis was shown to be correct, and the experiment has been replicated many times. However, one very important part of the hypothesis was that the Earth had a strongly reducing atmosphere. It is appearing to be more and more likely that the atmosphere was neither oxidizing nor reducing, and Miller-Urey does not work under such conditions. If some of the current theories of the early atmosphere are correct it would invalidate the experiment, and falsify the hypothesis.
That is the way science works. You can't just say "I think it works like this, prove me wrong!" If you think something works in a particular fashion, it is up to you to provide evidence for it. This is where Creationism/ID fails. There is no evidence for it. There are no experiments that can gather evidence for it. It is not science.
Could have occurred? Is that science as well?
Absolutely. Nothing is absolute. What we know today may be proven wrong tomorrow. An excellent example is the structure of the atom. At one time it was widely accepted that atoms were very compact. The model was called the "plum pudding" model of atomic structure, because it was thought that atoms were dense like pudding. Scientists conducted an experiment to show that it was true, and discovered quite the opposite: Atoms are mostly empty space.
(They were so surprised by the results that they thought there was something mechanically wrong with their experiment, and they repeated it until they were convinced that the scientific world's view of the atom was totally wrong).
Only a fool would state that a theory was proven to be 100% correct. Many people say that "evolution is both a theory and a fact". Don't misunderstand this. Evolution is known to occur, it can be observed to occur, and it has been observed to occur. That evolution occurs is a fact. That does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is a fact. It merely adds more support to it. Aspects of the TOE could change tomorrow with new discoveries. There is such an overwhelming amount of data supporting it that it is highly unlikely that it will ever be falsified.
Yes, I said "highly unlikely", not "absolutely impossible". No theory is ever absolute. Not ever.
Resources:
Biology (2005): Campbell & Reese, 7th edition, Pearson Publications.
Lecture and Lab notes, Freshman Biology, WSU, 2005.
Which one? That the earth formerly had a reducing atmosphere or that organic molecules could form from interactions between chemicals in the atmosphere?
If you think something works in a particular fashion, it is up to you to provide evidence for it.
So how does intelligent design work? It begins with thoughts. What kind of evidence do I have to provide in order to assure the scientific world that thoughts are integral to intelligent design? It often, yet not always, ends with a combination of matter that performs specific functions.
Is it somehow mysterious, superstitious, or unscientific to suggest the building blocks of the particle world - consistently cause and effect related as they are - might entail a designer? I mean, we're not talking about proofs here. Just reasonable inferences, no less scientific than those asserting morphological similarities constitute a relationship in history.
What kind of evidence are you demanding here? A little man who looks like George Burns and pops out to introduce himself and state plainly that he is responsible for bringing about and sustaining a universe that is intellectually accessible?