I can imagine no practical difference, other than simply seeking the truth. If ANY of the theories can ever be PROVEN, then we can lay the arguments about it to rest, which would be a worthwhile thing, probably.
I just believe that no halfway reasonable theory should be discounted and discarded until it can be disproven.
Okay, I just have to stop you there. This is exactly why I said we were going to need a refresher course in the meanings of words.
No theory is ever proven. None. Ever.
Not the theory of gravity.
Not germ theory.
Not the Theory of Evolution.
No theory. That's not what a theory is.
Time once again to review our terms:
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"
Theories are never proven. They may be disproven - in fact, the possibility of evidence arising to contradict it is essential. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, that would be something like finding a eight million year-old Homo Sapiens skeleton. That would prove the ToE is wrong. This is called "Falsifiability".
There is no conceivable piece of physical evidence that would disprove the existence of a Designer. That means that ID fails to meet the basic criteria for being a scientific theory.
In our search for truth, I would hate to see us overlook the significance of any evidence we may someday encounter, simply because what it is telling us is something we already ignored because it seemed too far fetched. Many great minds, for instance, think it is very far fetched that we will ever encounter intelligent life out there, even if it exists. But I would hate to see someone ignore a coherent signal we got from space just because we refuse to believe anyone is out there.
I have no disagreement with this statement. The problem is: after centuries of postulating, no creationist has been able to supply even the smallest piece of physical evidence. Not one.
No scientist will ignore evidence. If a creationist ever finds some to support, then ID will be worth discussing.
With the exception of pure mathematics (without any real physical parameters).
You place a lot of weight in the words of wikipedia, which may or may not be correct as it is filled in by just about anyone who chooses to add to it (I think wikipedia has had some controversy lately over that very thing). Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven. Theories can, however, be tested, make predictions, and results repeated.