See, this is where ID falls down immediately; because it tries to redefine stuff as science that isn't. Lots of things can be described as rigorous inquiry. Law uses rigorous inquiry. Philosophy uses rigorous inquiry. Science uses a particular type of rigorous inquiry though the use of testable hypotheses. If something, such as ID, is not based on testable hypotheses, then it's not science. It may still be worth teaching, but not as science. The recognition of this, that something may be worth teaching, but not as science, is what's going on in what's described in the posted article and is a great idea.
Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education.
Once again, you corrupt the ideas of science to serve a non-scientific aim. Teaching ID has nothing to do with teaching a scientific theory. ID is not a theory. A theory is the result of a successfully tested hypothesis. ID has no ideas that have been successfully tested and is thus not a theory.
And as far as teaching ideas of competing scientists; Linus Pauling thought that Vitamin C would cure the common cold. He pushed it hard, but it didn't stand up to testing. Just because a scientist comes up with an idea doesn't mean that it should be taught as science.
By the same standard, your theory fails because my little blonde granddaughter doesn't look like an ape and if you say she does, you're in a world of trouble, pal.
Ah, the old missing link, eh? Piltdown Man was her other grandfather?
What is the connection between the example of curing the common
cold with Vitamin C and not having demonstrated it
in real life, in real (i.e. our) time, and the claim that
life as we know it, all "evolved" randomly from soups/mixtures of
chemicals when that hasn't been demonstrated in real time
either?