You need to convince the wider scientific community of the veracity of your claim first. Of course you won't. The best you can do is scientifically disprove the ToE. But because you can't, you want to drag it to your side, redefine it, so you can destroy it with a different set of rules that aren't science.
Just face the fact that you don't like the ToE because it doesn't include your god in it, because you think everything should include your god. You have a horse in this race, and are therefore extremely biased.
OTOH, I don't care one bit if the ToE gets thrown out of the schools as an outdated theory. Give me scientific disproof of the ToE and an alternate scientific theory that better explains what we see, and I'll be the first volunteer to present it. I wouldn't mind the Nobel Prize and a permanent place in the science books.
I will be your cheerleader if you can give that to me, because it will advance science. But I will not be a cheerleader for religion masquerading as science.
You, OTOH, would most likely not volunteer to promote a disproof of your god.
I would if that were the case. I do not like the ToE (in the wide sense) because it falsely assumes the name science for itself and invokes the law to gain an exclusive hearing in public school science rooms. I am not the one trying to outlaw any mention of ToE in science classrooms, however.
Like many in your shrinking club, you apply a double standard to the ToE and intelligent design. You allow ample room for inference on the part of the former, but deny it entirely to the latter, even though the latter enjoys present day, scientifically accessible processes of intelligent design. Worst of all, you demonstrate a crass disregard for what is written in our Constitution.