>You have no idea how absurd that is, do you?
As I understood it in the definitions posted above: Hypothesis->Theory->Law. So, it may not be afull-fledged theory theory yet...more like a hybrid between theory and law. That's ID.
Theories do not become Laws, and Laws were never theories.
The list of definitions I posted is not in any particular order--it grew as I added more and more definitions. I am repeating the pertinent ones again:
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." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
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"
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Note that a theory does not grow up to be a law. A law is very simple, and often a description of observed events. A theory attempts to explain the events and how they interrelate.
Also, a theory is not a starting point. You don't sit down and say, this is my theory in science. You propose hypotheses and test them. If you get a lot of successful tests you can form a theory from them. A well-tested and well-supported theory is the goal of science because it explains things.
This is where ID fails as a theory. There is no testing being done; there is simply nothing resembling the scientific method to ID.
At the most, there are hypotheses; where they could be tested at all, they have been shown to be incorrect. Don't pass go, don't advance to theory.