Outside of science (philosophy?) they are nowhere near the most "out-there" of theories.

No. Evolution (specifically biological macro-evolution, which is what ID and science disagree upon) does NOT make statements of fact.

Both ID and Evolution make conjectural (non-factual) statements and then look for evidence that supports their specific view. The only problem is that none of us have empirically observed how life really came about, so we have no basis on which to say that the end results (or evidence) for a process is really correct.

Let's review science first -- evidence in science is only authoritative when you can (without fail) repeat an empirical process X and come up with the end result Y (the evidence). Don't you see the problem of trying to define an umempirical process by the evidence? This is basic rationale, you have no way of knowing WHAT produced the evidence because it is unempirical.

So I can see why Bio. Macro-Evo. is nice. You get to bullshit about what you think X process should be, bullshit about how you believe X process should produce Y evidence (more importantly -- with no empirical observation to prove that X indeed produces Y), and then go on a search for Y evidence to confirm all your bullshitting. When you find Z evidence instead of Y, simply say that X process actually produces Z evidence to make it look like you have a whole bunch of Z evidence to back up process X. Meanwhile, everyone forgets that you actually have to show X process empirically producing Z evidence to even logically conclude that the existence of Z evidence is a valid byproduct of the existence of process X. Brilliantly rational science we have there.

Both ID and Biological macro-evolution are the equivalent of a pack of toddlers that have no concept of forensics and criminal behavior attempting to explain what happened at an extremely complex crime scene. They know a bunch of people died (the end result), and that's it. Logically and rationally, that's all they can know.

"The only problem is that none of us have empirically observed how life really came about, so we have no basis on which to say that the end results (or evidence) for a process is really correct."

Evolution makes no attempts to describe how the first living cell came about. Evolution begins from the first cell, and goes forward from there. The study of how that first cell formed is called Abiogenesis.

"Let's review science first -- evidence in science is only authoritative when you can (without fail) repeat an empirical process X and come up with the end result Y (the evidence)."

Predictions made by science can speculate on the outcomes of a particular experiment or on the ability of a hypothesis to explain past outcomes. Without the second half of this statement you can discard all mathematical models, including the science of the big bang, star formation, weather/climate prediction, and nearly all of social science.

"Brilliantly rational science we have there."

Science, when done well, does nothing of the sort. What you have described is poor science, and there is poor science much the same as there is poor coding. However, Evolution is a framework arrived at from many hypotheses, many experiments, and many logical arguments put forward by many individuals over the past 150 years. You would do well to first comprehend some of the arguments before dismissing them out of hand.

What you are talking about is not strictly ID. It is the combination of ID and creationism.