Except that science does not have a corner on the market on the word *theory*. ID qualifies as a theory in the general sense of the word. From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
But the argument is that ID is a scientific theory, in which case the definition used in science is the metric.
ID makes no testable assumptions, therefore, it is not science.
Yes the first out of the box. Observation of a material is the first requirement of the method of science. Science observes facts. You have observed ID as a fact?