Finally we see an admission that ID cannot be tested nor proven...thus it is not science. Let us then look at your claim that Evolution also cannot be tested or proven.
If evolution cannot be tested, why is there so many scientific papers devoted into experimental evolution? You want me to cite a few? Here they are, pulling them out of a hat:
McKenzie, J. A., and P. Batterham. 1994. The genetic, molecular and phenotypic consequences of selection for insecticide resistance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, 166-169.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson, and S. C. Tadler. 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138, 1315-1341.
Elena, S. F., and R. E. Lenski. 2003. Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation. Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 457-469.
I could go on all day here. Never mind that those scientists are the evil spawns of the sacred cow of materialism. The point is, evolution theory has hypothesis that could be tested. And they are being tested every single day, as illustrated by the above papers I mentioned. And if a theory could be tested, it IS proper scientific process (however wrong it might turn out to be).
I took a look at the website you mentioned. And if you want, I could go point by point. But I don't want to fall into the trap of talking too much in too short a space. Let me just limit myself and reiterate what I have been trying to say all along. ID is not a science because we cannot devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. Evolution, however imperfect it is, IS from the simple virtue that it abides by the scientific method.
Let's recap
1. Science is a systematic process of gaining knowledge through the scientific method : observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment.
2. ID has observation and hypothesis. But no prediction and experiment. (If I'm wrong, do be kind and provide examples). Hence it is not science.
3. Evolution theory has all components of the scientific method. Including the testing as the above papers I mentioned illustrate. Hence it is science.
Conclusion? Keep non science stuff out of science classrooms!!!
PS. If you want to think critically, learn to recognize a few logical fallacies. If A is wrong, it does not necessarily mean B is right. If you want to show that ID deserves respect, show evidence by its own merit, not back-riding on what you perceive to be faults on the evolution side. Attacking evolution does not make ID right. On the same note, accepting evolutionary theory does not necessarily make that person hostile towards a 'designer'. There are plenty of theologists who have come to term with evolution.
And another thing
Intelligently applied experiments cannot be used to "prove" that "no intelligence was necessary" to drive a process.
Do understand that we do not actively engage in trying to "prove" no intelligence was necessary. As a matter of fact, we ask no such questions. As I have said before, such matter is outside the scope of science. We do not ask it. We do not endorse it. We do not hate it either.
With all due respect, Evolution is NOT science, it is a philosophy of origins, it is a lens through which the data is tautologically filtered, it is a conjecture based on assumptions posing as axioms.
Please allow me to quote from another engineer, who explains it better than I can. You can see his white paper addressing Evolutionism in its entirety at Evolution vs, Creation, I highly recommend it.
Similarity does not imply ancestry. Taxonomy involves classifying animals according to their physical or genetic characteristics. There are countless species, and among them there are many similarities, physically and genetically.
One who is an evolutionist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be common ancestries between various kinds of animals.
One who is a creationist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be a common designer and design principles for all the various kinds of animals.
In both cases, the conclusion is based on prior acceptance of either the principle of evolution or creation.
Correlation does not imply a cause-effect relationship. If two life forms "A" and "B" are similar, this does not imply that "B" evolved from "A," any more than it implies that "A" evolved from "B." Evolutionary charts drawn up to illustrate ancestral relationships between all the various life forms are therefore entirely hypothetical and speculative to begin with. And it would be circular reasoning to argue that the charts support evolution.
The important point to keep in mind is that all the animals exist in the present. Fossils also exist in the present. We weren't there to observe either evolution or creation happen. So similarities between species do not demonstrate that either creation or evolution happened.
9. Transitional Forms
The issue of whether or not "transitional forms" exist is not a productive topic to debate in the creation/evolution controversy.
Some evolutionists use similarities between three particular animals to argue that animal A evolved into animal B based on the fact that animal X exists.
Some creationists use the dissimilarities between these same animals to argue that animal A did not evolve into animal X and animal X did not evolve into animal B.
Said evolutionists keep seeking to justify their "transitional forms" on account of the similarities and despite the differences.
Said creationists keep seeking to rule out "transitional forms" on account of the differences and despite the similarities.
Anything is good enough for the evolutionist, and nothing is good enough for the creationist. Neither will ever satisfy the other or a discerning observer.
A scientific theory is validated through experimental observation and/or theoretical evaluation.
Neither party actually observed the origin of animals A, B, or X, so neither party is qualified to argue scientifically from an experimental perspective whether or not animal X is a "transitional form."
Neither party can justify the origin of animals A, B, or X from a theoretical perspective, since no scientific theory exists to explain why animals A, B, or X must exist with their particular characteristics.
It can be concluded that a discussion of "transitional forms" is moot and useless.
Fine.
You can continue to monopolize the Tax-Funded, Government-Mandated, Union-Run Education Collectives.
But remember that Thomas Jefferson, from whom the phrase "separation of church and state" was wrested and perverted to somehow be a part of the Consitution that was written without any of his input, while he was ambassador to France, said, "To compel a man to furnish moneys for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is tyranny and a geat sin."