No, evolution is not scientific. It departs from the scientific method when it assumes that observations can be extrapolated into unobserved events. Evolution does the very same thing that ID does, it just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design. No difference.
"I direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."
Yeah, and OJ didn't do it because the jury said he didn't.
So, is theoretical physics nothing but a sham? It can also involve "extrapol[ating] observations into unobserved events."
Was Dr. Richard Sander guilty not of not being scientific when he argued in a paper that without affirmative action, the number of black lawyers would rise? Granted, he is a social scientist. Nevertheless, he "extrapolated observations into unobserved events." So, was he not being scientific?
You're admitting that intelligent design is not natural. Therefore, it has no role in science. Agreed?
Also, Judge Jones wrote "defense experts concede...
No mention of a jury.