There's no possible way to test the Big Bang theory or Global Warming theories either. But they have been smeared over our science textbooks for years.
Global Warming theorists are like roosters taking credit for the sun rising (they crow every morning, and sure enough the sun rises, it must be them)
Your comparison of Big Bang cosmology and ID is faulty. BBC won out over the Steady State theory because the SST couldn't explain the microwave background radiation. IE the theory fits the data better than other theories and it accounts for the observations.
There are potential observations that would show BB to be false - eg, finding **very** distant galaxies (say 100 billion light years distant), or finding that the spectra of distant galaxies is just like that of modern ones, with the same proportion of heavy elements (because the theory is that these are from supernovas, and there wouldn't have been time for many of those in very early galaxies) IE, the theory is falsifiable.
The problem with ID that I was addressing is its vacuity. It does not, in any except the trivial "that's how the designer did it" way, explain the distribution of genetic markers across different species, like the example I frequently use of cows, hippos, and whales. In fact it explains nothing.
And even more damningly, it cannot be falsified; there is no possible observation that is inconsistent with "that's how the designer did it", unless you can somehow put limitations on the designer's abilities or desires or whatever. This hasn't been done; if the designer is God, it can't be done.
Global warming is **much** more speculative than either BB or ToE. There is some evidence that warming is occuring, but whether, or to what degree, it is manmade is very unclear. However, there really are "greenhouse gases", so it's not complete cr@p, but it obviously is very politicized by the usual suspects.
RA, I pinged you on this because I pretty much exhausted my knowledge of BB's status as a theory
Merry Christmas to all!