If all that is required to be called a theory, is to match what is observed around us, then ID is certainly as close to a "theory" as macro evolution. These "observations" are circumstantial evidence, which can provide a foundation for a theory but don't tell the whole story.
The real trick is to create an experiment that will disprove the theory if it succeeds. If you can't construct an experiment that can disprove the "theory" it isn't a theory yet.
The real trick is to create an experiment that will disprove the theory if it succeeds. If you can't construct an experiment that can disprove the "theory" it isn't a theory yet.
Lets define some terms and try again (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
You might study some science methodology. You have erred in several places.
DrCoyote