I assume that is the definition evos have been working with. Again, an intelligent designer is a reasonable way to explain the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. I have yet to see an evo suggest a better alternative to fit the evidence, and I have yet to see any evo enumerate those things science can accomplish without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.
Nothing in the scientific definition of "theory" suggests there must be evidence to confute it in order for it to be a theory. Even so, I told you that the evidence which best refutes the theory of intelligent design is matter that is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws. So far there has been little of it forthcoming, black holes perhaps being an example.
Not all reasonable explainations are theories - in the scientific sense.
I have yet to see an evo suggest a better alternative to fit the evidence, and I have yet to see any evo enumerate those things science can accomplish without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.
Even the explaination that we are brains in jars imagining the universe "fits the evidence". Simply fitting the evidence is not what makes an explaination scientific. Explainations that fit the evidence are a dime a dozen.
Nothing in the scientific definition of "theory" suggests there must be evidence to confute it in order for it to be a theory.
It's called falsifiability and it is considered a requirement for scientific explainations, whether or not they become theories. The reasoning behind this is that explainations that cannot be potentially disproven cannot be tested. Therefore what use are they other than philosophical curiosities? Again I present the "brains in a jar" explaination as an example of an idle curiousity that explains the whole universe perfectly and yet is not testable and therefore cannot be a scientific theory.
Even so, I told you that the evidence which best refutes the theory of intelligent design is matter that is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws.
How would that refute intelligent design? Why would intelligence be unable to design unorganised and unpredictable systems? An omnipotent being, as you suggested, would be capable of anything. Therefore anything we possibly observe would never disprove it.