I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.
Oh, yeah, preventing IDers from doing actual, original and relevant scientific research advancing ID. The gatekeepers we evilutionists assign to this task is based on the difficulty. Currently we have one small boy and his puppy dog handling this. Part time.
I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.
If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.
That would make it even harder for ID to replace the new theory of evolution.
The one thing that is preventing ID from "becoming a mainstream scientific research project" is that it is inspired by religious belief, not science! The vast majority of ID proponents are Christian creationists, who believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. When they try to do science it is transparently obvious where their beliefs lie, and their beliefs are not in the scientific method.
Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.
A significant percentage of folks who argue for ID also quote scripture, suggest those who support the theory of evolution are destined to hell, and exhibit other characteristics which suggest that it is not science, but pushing religion, that is their primary motivation.
Why should we believe for a minute that ID is anything more than creation "science" warmed over after the Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s?