That is false. Meaningful predictions of both the Big Bang and Inflation theories have been made and have been tested. It is what makes them, unlike ID, scientific theories. Anyone who follows scientific matters even cursorily knows this.
Now, I would guess that your ignorance of evolution is just as great as your ignorance of cosmology. How about a test? Can you identify three significant ways that evolutionary theory has changed from Darwin's formulation?
In the scientific sense, "prediction" doesn't mean just a guess about future events which can't then be tested in order to prove or disprove. Science "predicts", i.e. hypothesizes, and then proves experimentally. No one has reproduced the Big Bang in even a tiny way, nor have physicists been able to stick for more than a few consecutive years, to a hypothesis that the universe is expending, vs. a hypothesis that it is shrinking. Creationists are making predictions too -- just read the book of Revelation. But those predictions are no more testable than physicists theories about what prompted the Big Bang, or about whether the universe is irreversibly expanding, irreversibly contracting, or changing directions from time to time.
I'm no "creationist". I think the Bible is a book of fairy tales, with some valuable philosophical insights incorporated. Like Cinderella, the story is pure fiction, but the underlying principle that the shabbily dressed servant is often a finer human being than the well-dressed rich people s/he waits one and cleans up after, is very true. But I think scientists should be honest about which of their theories have held up to numerous experimental tests, and which are still in the realm of imaginative theorizing. The creationists haven't done squat to explain how their "God" came into being, any more than physicists have advanced any fact-based explanation for what triggered the Big Bang. These are basically the same question.