"But ID doesn't even rise to the level of "hypothesis," let alone "theory."
Because it does not speculate natural causes?
"And it was firmly marked as being speculative, and the experimental results that had been achieved were discussed."
The experiments failed of course. Why? Many reasons, one hypothesis is that life can only be created by God. If you always exclude God in your speculation on first causes, because you say that such speculation is not science, then you are simply espousing the religion of Naturalism and by default defining science as the religion of Naturalism.
"Because it does not speculate natural causes?"
No, because it makes no falsifiable predictions that can be tested against the physical world.
"The experiments failed of course."
Actually, the results were inconclusive (i.e., some predictions were confirmed, others were not, and the results seem to be extremely sensitive to small variations in the test environment), which is why those hypotheses are still partially valid hypotheses (a complete and unambiguous failure would invalidate the entire hypothesis), but are not considered theories.
"Many reasons, one hypothesis is that life can only be created by God."
Sure. Great hypothesis.
Now provide a falsifiable test for this hypothesis.