As absurd as that sounds, it doesn't strike me as any more absurd than the idea that we all evolved from pond scum or that pond scum spontaneously came into existence.
ID does however, have testible predictions such as "irreducable compexity".
Evolutionists just take it on "faith" that an answer to the complexity problem will be found.
We did not--we and pond scum evolved together from something else.
or that pond scum spontaneously came into existence.
Indeed. Which is why modern science does not subscribe to this thesis. Pond scum came into existence gradually, just like all other presently living entites. As did all the single-cell DNA-based precursors to pond scum to which you are actually alluding.
ID does however, have testible predictions such as "irreducable compexity".
I can summarize ID's best arguments in a nutshell--"If I can't think of how to do it, it must be impossible."
Behe is the most pursuasive and technical of the ID'ers, and so far, Behe's prediction score is failures - 5, successes - 0. All the rest pending. Unless you have established a test or prediction that has a reasonable chance of failing if false, sometime, say, in the next thousand years, you ain't gettin' a passing grade in experiment construction.
Granting your less-than-universally-supported contention that there is a complexity problem...
Just as physicists and astronomers take it on faith that an answer to the dark matter conundrum will be found--or not... and go right on doing astronomy and physics, regardless.