Even if you were right, the hypothesis should still be mentioned.
Science doesn't develop the test before the hypothesis, but rather the hypothesis before the test.
This is not generally true. The hypothesis must contain a prediction, even if the technology doesn't currently support testing. This is true of string theories, for example.
In the case of ID, it is not technology that is the barrier; it is the lack of a hypothesis. There is nothing to look for, even if we had the means.
This isn't just me saying this. This is admitted by the founders of the ID movement.