This is a complete red herring, and as such, all of your post which follows is as well. The first two sentences above are correct, they abound and are proven and disproven regularly.. but not all are.. many remain hypothesis for centuries. Atoms, once again, are an example.
Interesting little foray with that whole word game ya played with "truth", and your attempt to divert into moral relativism. I use that word true and truth, such as when I say science seeks to find the truth, in the context of seeking to find the factual nature of things. But then again, I think you really knew that and were just playing games. Morality issues have, in my opinion, no place in science beyond maybe studying the effects that certain moral beliefs have upon us. Who knows? To me, anything someone can ask a question about and wonder about is subject for scientific study in some form or other.
I think some, like yourself, fear ID being pursued because they think that it goes hand in hand with forcing some sort of morality into science, and fear the schools teaching kids moral issues in science class or something. I agree that moral issues should be left in philosophy and comparative religion types of classes, but do not think that simply exploring whether a intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe necessarily means you have to get involved in moral issues.
Huge numbers of people believe in some form of Creator. Whether one exists or not, the fact that so many people do believe in it is good reason to research that it, and to explore for evidence which may help prove or disprove it. It is something (at the very least a delusion) which merits study. Name me any other subject of study which science was willing to say "we cannot find out so we will not even try". Not provable? How can we know what tomorrow will bring?
When I encounter narrow minds on either side of this issue, be they believers in a creator, or atheistic types, I almost think it would be amusing if one day, somewhere on some planet, we found something which could prove irrefutably that there was once a God of some form.. but that he was now dead. Oh, how that would ruin EVERYONE'S day.
My point to you is that you appear to working from a relativist view. Especially talking about "truths" in science. IMO, the word "truth" sets off moralistic alarms and does not have a place in science. Science just is,it exists, and we struggle to understand it. For e.g., thermodynamics exists and we struggle to understand it. Evolution exists and is a lot easier to understand.
It seems like you have a lot of hypotheses and "truths" that you are wrestling around with in your head. Hope these evo threads help you straighten it out.
But don't you see? ANY test result is consistent with the hypothosis "an all-powerful creator exists" and no test result can establish the hypothosis "an all-powerful creator doesn't exist," for the simple reason that the proposed entity, if it exists, could make the test results appear negative. There is no way to avoid that fact, regardless of how the test is structured, because it is inherent in the premise. As such, the hypothesis itself is outside the realm of science.