You may have had the impression you showed something, but there's nothing in what you wrote that shows ID as a valid science. "Dig deeper" could be said about any theory, that's why it's not proof that you have a scientific theory.
For example :
"Dragon is, or Dragon is not? Was humanity a result of a fart by a constipated dragon? Was the universe and all we know of it a result of a diarrhea? Maybe one day we will know. But with current technological limitations, it remains a potential. "
See, I just changed some words and with your "tests", it seems an hypothesis as valid as yours.
If that's all you have to say, I guess we can conclude that ID is not science since you refuse to provide any experiment that would verify an ID hypothesis (and no, throwing random experiments without explaining why they relate to ID is not valid).