For it to be such, there would need to be a pretty clear path for developing it into a theory.
True, because it is faith-based, it is hard to develop it into such a path.
Behe, Demski, Meyer and others have all stated unequivocably that their work is not faith-based. They have never made claims that God was the "designer."
Please do not represent ID as being "faith-based," and we can all get along in a calmer atmosphere.
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, and Australopithecus are names affectionately given to some of the jawbones, teeth and other fragmentary pieces of bones claimed to be the ancestor of Homo Sapiens and later recognized as hoaxes or mistakes.
The accepted body of knowledge about evolution may be vast, but what do we really know about the ancestor of man? So far, just a lot of dead-end branches of the chimp family.
The paleontologists squabble among themselves even more than Freepers. Mary Leaky said about Donald Johanson, the discoverer of "Lucy," that his work was "not very scientific," and Johanson responded that Mary Leaky "really shows a poor appreciation of what evolution is all about."