The former is wrong. A really good example of the danger of depending upon negative evidence is what Hugh Ross has done in anthropology. Now, his prediction was that the future would still show no evidence of human produced art. Then along comes the 75,000 year old Australian art work. He has proven wrong.
Negative evidence can never prove a theory.
ONly positive evidence does that. If Hugh Ross, like me, had predicted human-like activity prior to 60,000 years, he too could claim confirmation of his view. For ID to say that the future will continue to show gaps in abiogenesis is resting your theory on negative evidence. It is dangerous and can never confirm your theory.