Then why don't/won't creationist and ID advocates do that? Instead of offering "an alternative ... theory," they're skipping that step almost entirely -- and a number of steps immediately following, e.g. testing, publication and peer review -- and asking that curricula be altered to (falsely) suggest that the "alternative" has already been presented, tested, refined, vetted, and achieved scientific standing somehow comparable to evolutionary theory!
So until we can scientifically determine that there are parallel universes, other dimensions, life in other galaxies, etc., we should ban discussion of those issues in any government forum?
There are many theoretically possible ways that the universe came about. The two most popular around here seem to be:
1) God created the universe and established its laws.
2) The universe just happens to exist and its laws just happen to work the way they do.
We're constantly told that #2 is "science" while #1 is "religion". Of course, that's nonsense.
The same thing applies to how life on earth developed. One school of thought is that God designed it. The other is that it just happens to have somehow evolved on its own. One is just as much based on faith as the other.
This is particularly obvious when evolutionists assert that Christians can believe in evolution. We're told that it's okay for Christians to believe that evolution was the method God used to form the millions of species on earth, including man. But if that's true, then evolution itself is INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Many of the evolutionists here thus use intelligent design arguments to lure Christians into accepting evolution, without realizing that that's exactly what they're doing. Either God had something to do with how we got here, or He didn't. If He did, we're the product of intelligent design.