I have no problem wit intelligent design being a hypothesis. When it accumulates 50 years or so of supporting evidence then it might be called a theory.
Assuming it comes up with soe objective methodology for determining that something cannot occur through natural, regular processes.
You and I have been round and round on this. I have no problem with considering the possibility that existence is designed in order to bring about life. But that says nothing about the process or the history of life.
On another thread, betty boop observes that Kauffman speaks of his musings as "proto-science" instead of "science" - that it opens "the conceptual space in which science can (hopefully) fruitfully proceed in the devlopment of its work." Perhaps we can find a good moniker in here somewhere...
One point though, the Intelligent Design theorists do not dispute the age of the universe, the fossil record, or much of evolution theory - and thus would not argue about the evidence for the history of life. The dispute arises over the complexity that all of science and mathematics continues to observe in biological life, i.e. that evolution is not an adequate and/or complete explanation.
And indeed, Darwin's formulation "random mutations + natural selection > species" is no longer adequate because of the "randomness" component. It wouldn't be adequate if there were never such a movement called "Intelligent Design". That part of the investigation will surely continue regardless of format: formal, falsifiable scientific theory, mathematical theory with logical proofs, observation of historical records, proto-science - etc.