For those who take evolution all the way back to pre-animate chains of amino acids replicating themselves in a primordial sea as the starting point, I think it does. If you want to argue that that's technically a different theory, feel free. But it all sort of runs together quite often.
ID is not a scientific theory. Hypothesis maybe, theory, no.
It's a theory because it does make some predictions, even if they haven't fully panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionists. Their prediction is that they might be able to find some biological systems that clearly cannot be explained through natural selection.
And you don't make up a theory or a hypothesis and look for evidence to bqack itup. You look at the dataand formulate the best theory you can to cover it all.
Actually, that's what at least some of them did. They looked at various biological systems from blood clotting and flagellum to things like the structure of the human eye and felt that evolution alone seemed to be an unlikely explanation for them all, thus they formulated a different or additional explanation. That some of their claims (e.g., the flagellum) may have natural explanations does not preclude the possibility that they'll find a different system that doesn't have a natural exlanation. Maybe they are wrong and science, along with a better understanding of the genes of various creatures, will provide a natural explanation for everything. But you won't know until you look and try to explain it.
Why does their theory propose intelligent design by some form of divinity? Because the alternative for random mutations and natural selection is a process that's not natural, the most obvious alternative being planning, which suggests intelligence.
Uh, that would be almost nobody. Since we discovered some time ago that proteins are translated from RNA, and not vice versa, people haven't tended to worry about chains of amino acids replicating themselves.
It's a theory because it does make some predictions, even if they haven't fully panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionists. Their prediction is that they might be able to find some biological systems that clearly cannot be explained through natural selection.
That's simply a re-statement of ID, not a prediction.
They looked at various biological systems from blood clotting and flagellum to things like the structure of the human eye and felt that evolution alone seemed to be an unlikely explanation for them all, thus they formulated a different or additional explanation.
Alas, science isn't about 'feelings'.
I would agree that most biologists believe this, but it is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is more of a conjecture, since there are no real details.
Are you asserting it is immoral to assume natural causes and work to find them?