"OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter)."
First of all, your "prediction" is not a prediction made by ID which is experimentally verifiable - it is a negative prediction about evolution regarding an event that might take thousands to millions of years to observe (other than the numerous obvious examples trapped in the fossil record, which you apparently discount). By the way this "prediction" is scientifically worthless, since you could always wait longer for the event to occur. Bad experiment.
How about trying for a truly ID based prediction, such as 'if ID is correct, we will observe X, Y and Z about flagella, which would not be the case under the evolutionary theory.'
THAT would be a scientific, testable ID prediction. I've not seen any so far, nor do I expect to.
More semantic obfuscation. What is "observed" and what is not "observed" is a matter of semantics. I can certainly "observe" that Neo-Darwinan macroevolution has never been reproduced in the lab or directly documented in nature. And if it ever *were* observed, you can bet your bottom dollar that evolutionists would claim it discredits ID theory.
Your attempt to rule out that kind of observation is simply a ruse to stack the deck in your favor. But evolutionists are prolific with such ruses.