The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions.
There will always be unanswered questions. To assume otherwise is ludicrous.
Evidence that does not fit. “Facts” that have proven illusive or false.
Like what?
Fabricated evidence.
It happens. However, once the fabrication has been exposed it is rejected. Can't say the same for creationists. They've been telling the same falsehoods for decades.
Explanations that are logically incomplete.
Like what?
Jerry-rigged computer models – oops! – sorry, that’s global warming.
Cute way to sneak in a strawman.
Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwin’s rumination.
It is not a theory. It meets exactly none of the basic requirements of a theory.
Is this “unscientific” as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep “God” out of science?
Nobody is wailing and gnashing, and there is no "haste to keep God out of science". The concern is that religion will be taught as science. That is what the debate is about.
No. It’s an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist – fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.
It is not an alternative hypothesis, or a competing theory. There is no hypothesis. There is no theory. It asks no questions. It makes no predictions. There are no tests. It just says "that's too complicated to happen on it's own, God did it, move along, move along". This is NOT how science advances: this is how science is stagnated.