what I meant was that Intelligent Design is indeed called a scientific theory, just as evolution is. (However, it’s VERY interesting, and encouraging, that so many scientists embrace it - also, that so many of them have religious faith). WE know which one is right.
Sorry, no. The term "theory" does not mean idea or guess or proposal, as might be common usage for the layman. In science, "theory" has a much more specific meaning.
In short, a theory is the current best explanation for a given set of facts. It has been advanced to this level from an hypothesis because it explained all of the relevant facts, and made predictions which were subsequently confirmed. Further, in a mature field of science there is generally only one theory at a time used to explain that given set of facts.
When a field of investigation is young, there will likely be a series of hypotheses proposed to explain the facts. These are modified, or discarded, as the evidence accumulates until only one survives, which then is advanced to the level of a theory.
So when you say that intelligent design is a scientific theory you are incorrect; that would also be giving ID a major "affirmative action" boost that it has not earned through testing and the normal scientific process. ID is still an idea, from which a few testable hypotheses have been derived. Irreducible complexity and Dembski's explanatory filter are two such. The examples of irreducible complexity that Behe proposed have been shown not to be irreducibly complex, and Dembski gave up on his explanatory filter idea just this week.
If you want to bring ID into the realm of science, you have to follow the rules of science. So far ID has not shown any promise of being science, and there is a lot of evidence that it is simply religion dressed up in new clothes.