Well, repeatablility is only one of the criteria for a theory. And TToE meets that one. I have no idea what you mean by "no... theory takes place apart from intelligent design." That is a prima facie meaningless statement.
A very quick summary as what is required for a thoery courtesy Dante Alighieri :
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?
Really? Please let me know when science has the opportunity to start with simple life forms and observe them developing into the variety of species known today, and please advise me how science will be able to ascertain how that development took place apart from either intelligence or design.
A very quick summary as what is required for a theory . . .
I thought these were requirements for "science." And I responded in saying science has the burden of declaring intelligent design unnatural or supernatural before it can eliminate consideration of the same as being "unscientific." On what basis can science declare intelligent design "supernatural" when there are demonstrable cases of intelligent design taking place constantly, our correspondence notwithstanding?