Your example of plate tectonics being rejected is nonsense. Geologists were quite aware of the continental drift hypothesis and spent decades looking for evidence (and finding it).
There is no comparison to ID, which has neither a phenomenon to explain nor an explanatory hypothesis.
REALLY? What do you think of this statement:
[The] hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty ... and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories."
The statement was uttered by Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago, regarding Alfred Wegener and his ridiculous theory of continental drift.
In fact, one of the proponents of this ridiculousness was so ostricized by his fellow scientists that he had to get a job teaching high school.
So let's forget the rewriting of history and get to what seem to be your points: ID has no phenomenon to explain nor an explanatory hypothesis. Both statements prove that you do not understand or are misrepresenting ID.
I have to go, but I'll post my response this evening. I'm sure there will be plenty more to discuss then.