False. Humans do ID all the time, so the "feasibility" part of the problem has been experimentally proved.
Beyond that, your objection basically boils down to a statement that it's impossible to tell the difference between designed and non-designed biological phenomena. Of course, this cuts both ways: if you can't tell the difference between design and non-design, then evolution isn't science, either -- how could it be, if the fundamental basis of the theory is, by your own assertion, untestable and unprovable?
So the state of play is this: we know that ID can occur, because humans do it. To demonstrate the concept more generally, one would need to define some means of discriminating between "designed" and "non-designed" or, conversely, some demonstration that one cannot tell the difference between them. This is a valid scientific question -- why would you dismiss it as "non-science?"
How does this impact the theory of evolution?
Beyond that, your objection basically boils down to a statement that it's impossible to tell the difference between designed and non-designed biological phenomena. Of course, this cuts both ways: if you can't tell the difference between design and non-design,
You cannot tell me if the world was created last tuesday either. However, that does not fall within the realm of science. Science makes predictions from evidence and observation. And the evidence is that the universe is billions of years old and evolution took place here on Earth. Anything else falls within the realm of faith or a belief system.
then evolution isn't science, either -- how could it be, if the fundamental basis of the theory is, by your own assertion, untestable and unprovable?
Nope. There are predictions that can be tested for evolution. This puts it squarely within the realm of science. ID cannot make such a claim.
1. How does ID account for mass extinctions and species extinction? If the saber-toothed tiger was intelligently designed to survive in the designed environment, why did this kind become extinct?
2. What exactly is a "kind"? The cat family as described by zoologists has a distinguishing characteristic, namely retractable claws, as a modification of the finger bones found in other animals having bilateral symmetry. Are the "cats" a kind? Or are domestic cats, lions, cheetahs, etc., different kinds?
3. What is a "kind" in the plant kingdom? Botanists have recorded similarities in roses, apples, pears, and other fuits placed in the rose family. Are these a "kind"? What about the lily family with bulbs, or the ferns? Are gymnosperms a different kind? Are monocotyledons and dicotyleldons among the angiosperms different kinds?
4. Why do human fetuses have tails? Every fetal sonogram shows that tails are developed at some stage of development, and sometimes are still present at birth. What is the Intelligent Design explanation for this?
5. It is well-known that the heme molecule in animal blood is similar to the chlorophyll molecule in green plants. Both are based on the porphyrin structure. The heme porphyrin has an iron atom (Fe) at the center, whereas the chlorophyll porphyrin has a magnesium atom (Mg). There is great consistency amongst all animal groups and plant groups. Is this observed fact an example of irreducible complexity and intelligent design?
6.Sometimes there are caves with blind cavefish. In the area surrounding the cave, there almost identical fish that are not blind. How does ID account for the species being virtually identical except for blindness?