We could easily solve this Evolution/ID argument with the scientific method, by setting up an experiment to test the abilities of this intelligent designer. Let us put your God to the test, as we test every scientific theory.
How should we go about designing this experiment? Perhaps we could hypothesize that God can make living organisms out of nothing but molecular components? Then we could set up the Miller-Urey experiment, but rather than using electricity to form amino acids, we can wait for God to work his miracles. If, after say, a year, God does not assemble the molecules into amino acids, we can infer that God does not have the ability to make living organisms out of non-living components.
Deal?
You misstate the theory of intelligent design which is NOT a theory that attempts to explain EVERYTHING -as the theory of evolution does. It has only been proposed as a theory by SCIENTISTS themselves for very specific phenomena for which they believe all other possible explanations have been ruled out. It is NOT the same thing as creationism which essentially just says God created it all. The Bible is not a science book and was not intended to try and explain the natural world. The fact that some religious people like this theory changes nothing -scientific fact isn't determined by whether it contradicts OR agrees with any religious doctrine. You'd think we learned that one a long time ago but apparently some people think any theory that happens to fit with some religious belief is automatically wrong. That is no more true than when people believed only those theories that fit with religious beliefs could possibly be correct. The theory of intelligent design is NOT religion based, it is not born from religious doctrine but as the result of scientific research and has been proposed for roughly 15 or 16 specific phenomena. The fact that some religious people have glommed onto this theory only because they think it fits their own personal religious beliefs doesn't mean it has no scientific validity. It only means some religious people happen to like this theory -which has no more bearing than the fact that atheists just love the theory of evolution for no other reason than the fact it rules out God. Atheists are so in love with that theory they will gloss over the fact this is a theory known to be seriously scientifically flawed. Yet still demand our kids taught to believe it is scientifically "proven". That makes them no less whackos than those who want kids taught creationism is scientifically proven fact.
The theory of intelligent design is not based on any religious doctrine and has been proposed by scientists in nearly every field of science as the best answer to explain only very specific, highly specific phenomena. Interestingly it has been proposed MORE often as we gained MORE scientific knowledge in the last 30 years -not less often as we gained more knowledge. And not once has it been proposed to try and explain everything by any scientist. Legitimate scientific theories are proposed to explain very specific phenomenon - but the theory of evolution was proposed to try and explain EVERYTHING. Different from ALL other scientific theories that have EVER been proposed before or since. Which it not only cannot do, but has already been proven to be badly flawed and does NOT explain what it proposes to explain. Even Darwin said THE only way to prove his theory was correct was through the fossil record -which he said IF he were correct, the bulk of which would be "in-between" species -of individuals showing one species in the process of turning into a completely different species. Except it doesn't. Not only are the bulk of fossils not "in-betweens", there isn't a single "in-between" that has ever been found. For ANY species. Zero. Every fossil ever found is a known, distinct species. Furthermore nearly every species that has ever existed or still exists today all showed up within about 10,000 years -a geologically extremely brief period of time. More than 120 times that length of time has passed since then without any "evolution" of one species turning into a totally different species. Only microevolution has occurred -changes within the species accumulated over time -but always remaining the same species. In addition, every geological period of time since then shows there are fewer species than the one right before it. That is the exact opposite of what the theory of evolution predicts -which says that each time period will have more diversification of life due to evolution and all those species branching off into totally new ones -and therefore MORE species in existence than the time period before it. But it doesn't. The period of time that had the greatest diversification of life was the Cambrian and there has been less and less ever since. Gee, when the FACTS contradict any other scientific theory, that is a pretty good clue the theory isn't correct after all, isn't it? Wonder what Darwin would do today with all this information he didn't have at the time when he was trying to explain EVERYTHING -now that reality shows his theory fails to do that.
One specific example where the theory of intelligent design has been proposed is what is for what is called "irreducibly complex systems". Suppose you had a mousetrap. It has a spring, the baseboard, the hook, the bait platform and the killing bar and whatever other parts are on mousetraps. Suppose you removed a part one at a time until you reached the point where removing ANY other part renders it a useless piece of junk and no longer a working mousetrap. THAT is the point where it becomes an irreducibly complex system.
The visual system is an irreducibly complex system. For most species it requires a minimum of 86 different chemical, hormonal, tissue and structural changes in the organism from central nervous tissue to changes in bone in order to have a functioning visual system. Remove even one of them and its just useless tissue.
The theory of evolution says the visual system came about by the slow accumulation of benign mutations until the final necessary change to whatever happened to still be missing just randomly and meaninglessly occurred and VOILA, two blind parents gave birth to offspring with fully functioning sight. The only problem is the fossil record shows it never happened this way. For ANY species. Fully functioning visual systems with all the necessary parts showed up intact and working -in thousands of unrelated species all at about the same geological period of time. The theory of intelligent design hypothesizes that the best answer for how it is possible for fully functioning visual systems to simultaneously show up in thousands of unrelated species is by means of intelligent design -that it couldn't happen by sheer chance that thousands of species all developed fully functioning visual systems that all showed at once and not in piecemeal fashion through long, slow accumulation of mutations as evolution theorizes. The odds this happened in thousands of species simultaneously as sheer random and meaningless CHANCE are so incredibly outrageously ludicrously high as to rule itself out as the most likely answer and make it among the very least likely answers. Just because you personally LIKE one theory more than another for your own personal reasons doesn't change the fact that the random, meaningless chance for the simultaneous appearance of fully functioning visual systems is actually among the least likely answers to explain that appearance.
The way any and all scientific theories are proven to be wrong or correct is the same -and the same way this one can be proven wrong. Scientists try to prove the theory WRONG. This is how science works. They can't do it by trying to prove it is correct -they can only prove it is correct by trying to find the situation or circumstance where it isn't true. If they fail to prove it is wrong in every conceivable circumstance, only over many, many years is it finally accepted to be scientific truth. Which is why the theory of evolution will always be called the theory of evolution and not scientific fact. They have already proven it to be NOT true in certain circumstances that the theory says it should be true and as a result cannot be scientific fact. The way to prove the theory of intelligent design is false is by finding a better and more likely answer for any one of the phenomena where it has been proposed. Which would also automatically throw that hypothesis into doubt for all the rest of them.
Now as for your so-called stupid ass "test" demanding God do what you want on your time schedule - I have a better and far more realistic one so you can try to prove YOUR beliefs about the origins of life, a belief that you hold with the same kind of religious zeal as any religious person -even though you have far less reason for it actually. In order for something to be "natural", it means it can be seen to occur in NATURE. In spite of man spending several thousand years now trying to prove that non-living materials can bestow life upon itself, it has never once been seen to occur in nature on this planet or anywhere else in the known universe. Not once. If this planet once had the ability for non-living materials to produce a living organism when we all know it is a scientific fact non-living materials have never, ever been seen to produce a living organism - it actually means there was nothing "natural" about it after all. An event that is never seen to happen in nature anywhere in the known universe can hardly be called "natural". Our planet didn't once upon a time have magical properties to produce living organisms from non-living materials that has since been lost never to be seen anywhere in the universe again -yet is still "natural" somehow. So I think those insisting it is still all "natural" even while never seen anywhere but at the very same time is all meaningless and random at the same time have the far greater burden of proof here. Show us all even ONE time where non-living materials produced a living organism. Just one. THAT is what you are insisting we all believe. Without any proof whatsoever and LOADS of evidence spanning eons that it doesn't. Since we all know it has never once been seen to ever happen, I don't have to prove it once upon a time didn't when it still doesn't today! Those demanding we all make a far greater leap of truly unfounded faith and at least pretend if we can't outright believe -that non-living materials once upon a time had the truly magical ability produce a living organism! And gee, exactly what species would that be anyway?
In fact, the theory this planet was seeded by aliens makes more sense than pretending non-living materials bestowed life on itself. But is a scientific fact it sure can't now. Which makes no sense given the fact the environment was FAR more hostile to life at the time it did appear on the planet compared to now. Surely non-living materials would be even more likely to start popping out little critters when today's environment is far more suitable to life than existed then. Insisting non-living materials can produce a living organism in spite of the fact it has never once been seen to ever occur anywhere is like insisting chaos can self organize -when the very definition of chaos is the lack of organization or ability to organize. But wait, evolutionary proponents also insist the universe self organized from chaos. But that definition defying event was also a randomly and meaninglessly and entirely NATURAL event as well. LOL What a dilemma you must pretend doesn't even exist at all when you are bound and determined to pretend something never seen to ever occur in nature at any time anywhere - is somehow still entirely "natural", huh. LOL
