A theory? ID might be called a hypothesis but certainly not a theory. A theory is well-established, having survived repeated testing via the scientific method.
The reason so many take umbrage to ID is that its proponents put forth no testable hypotheses, yet offer all sorts of conclusions.
I have no objection to teaching ID in philosophy class, but to date it has yet to rise to the level of science. (BTW, it is fine with me to discuss why it does not meet the standards of the scientific method in biology class.)
Sorry. “Hypothesis” works for me.
Where to start?! First of all, just because *you* haven't researched something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist or isn't a certain way.
In this case, ID is the *only* theory that explains the origin of transgenic lab animals such as pigs that are genetically designed to grow human growth hormones.
Second, as far as "testable hypotheses" go, ID is testable and falsifiable (no bias means no ID) whereas it is Evolutionary Theory that has no published, peer-reviewed falsification criteria.
So enjoy eating your crow. You've earned it.
The reason so many take umbrage to ID is that its proponents put forth no testable hypotheses, yet offer all sorts of conclusions.
The problem here is that most people commonly refer to the conclusions of both a priori and a posteriori reasoning as theories. The theory of evolution, like any science, is the conclusion of a line of inductive reasoning based on scientific evidence. ID is the conclusion of deductive reasoning based upon some postulate or axiom that is assumed to be true (that God created the Universe based on the literal interpretation of the Bible).
Evolution can easily be proved false since it is based on evidence (i.e. find proof that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together). ID is based on an axiom that is assumed to be true, so it can never be proved false any more than I can prove that God does or does not exist or that two parallel lines will always remain the same distance apart.