Quote
I noticed something about abiogenesis: There's no testable hypothesis for it.

I believe you are saying that it is untestable? Scientists are doing work all the time in this field. As I've said before, we've got A, which is organic chemicals, and B, which is self-replicating molecules. And the gap is narrowing. It doesn't take even a minute to find stories about this if you look.

Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers

Quote
A significant step toward understanding the origin of life may have been
made by a group of MIT researchers. Led by Professor Julius Rebek, Jr.
of the Department of Chemistry, they have created an extraordinary self-
replicating molecular system that they say might be regarded as a
"primitive sign of life."

It is not life itself, of course, but it is a kind of molecular model of
how self-replicationÑa most fundamental life process can occur.

In work recently reported in the Journal of the American Chemical
Society, Professor Rebek and his coworkers, Tjama Tjivikua, a graduate
student from Namibia, and Pablo Ballester, a visiting scientist from
the University of Palma in Mallorca, Spain, described the creation of an
extraordinary self-replicating molecular system . . .

You said:

Quote
Now if ID and CS must be classed as unscientific because some of the historical events they accept aren't testable

Which events are you referring to specifically?

I classify them as unscientific because their publications and websites are full of scientific inaccuracies. Some of these websites are run by people with suitable knowledge in their own fields and who really should know better. What other conclusion is there? They're lyin' to ya mate, and they know you won't question anything they say.