But there is precisely the problem. Epistemologically, this is a very imprecise and parochial definition of science. "Hard science bigots," a group that I tend to include myself in, would say that you have confounded "test," in the experimental,and empirical sense, with "intertrpetation of evidence," and these are not at all the same thing.
Not that I am supporting ID. I tend to think both sides are really pursuing Ontology, not science, but neither wants to admit it.
It may be obvious in the IDer's case, but this sort of wrror is all over what we call "The sciences" today, and not just in "Evolutiob Science," if there is indeed shuch a thing.
There are no similarities between the two "sides".
The scientific establishment has accumulated masses of information regarding fulfilled predictions of evolution, DNA maps that agree with apparent physiological differences between species. Literally hundreds of thousands of papers presented over the 150+ years that evolution has been confirmed.
While "ID" is primarily a promotional gimmick launched and sustained by the Discovery Institute using large donations by the moonies, among others. ID is popularly supported by the fundimentalist Christian crowd, like the environmental movement is supported by fundimentalist liberals.
The ID movement has much more in common with the environmental movement, which is a parasite of science, and does most of its work in the political/PR arena, not in the truth finding arena.
You could say that, but it would not be true. Forensic science is not rubbish just because you can't repeat historic events in the laboratory. The simple fact is that all science is questionable at its frontiers and becomes increasingly confident when expectations based on hypotheses are met for decades or centuries.
But no science, not even physics, ever proves anything or reaches finality with perfect mathematical relationships.
The only thing that comes close is quantum theory, and that covers a limited (although vast) range of phenomena.