Regarding ID: It takes the same data and draws different conclusions. That's theory.
And that data is...? You can't get to theory by guesswork, speculation, belief, or any other "make it up as you go" method. You get to theory by a long and detailed scientific process (see my earlier post). And it starts with observation and data. What is your data? That is all we have to go on, and so far ID cannot produce any data (saying evolution is bad does not support ID).
Your saying "my belief is as good as yours and should be taught as a theory too" simply ignores the way science is done.
You say you want to defend your belief. Fine. What is the evidence that you will bring to the table? And to how many decimal points?
Regarding ID: It takes the same data and draws different conclusions. That's theory.
No, it isn't. You're using "theory" in the vernacular, perhaps unaware that it has a very specific meaning when used in a scientific sense. Very common mistake.
A theory requires evidence. A theory must have been tested. A theory must be supported by that evidence. All before the word "theory" may be applied.
There has never been one piece of physical evidence to support ID. Ever. Until there is, it isn't worth the title "theory."
No it's not. Theory requires testable conclusions.