[Rokke]

"If Intelligent Design is a theory, then I must ask what it predicts, what observations support it and what hypothetical observations would prove it false."

How you choose to define "theory" is not relevant to this poll. The definition of "theory" is far broader than the limits you impose here.

"The problem is that not reading in the context of a scientific theory creates a false equivocation."

Only if you choose to believe that one theory is superior to the other. The fact remains, both theories share the common characteristics of being unproven and relying on speculation to be believed.

"The problem is that presenting non-scientific theories as equal to scientific theories requires re-defining science in such a way as to make any rational inquiry impossible."

No. It doesn't.

[Dimensio]

How you choose to define "theory" is not relevant to this poll.

I am not the one who has defined the word theory.

The definition of "theory" is far broader than the limits you impose here.

The word theory has multiple definitions. A specific definition is used when speaking of the "Theory of evolution". This definition does not apply to "Intelligent Design". As such, speaking of "both theories" when speaking of evolution and intelligent design involves a false equivocation.

Only if you choose to believe that one theory is superior to the other.

It is not a question of superiority. The matter is over the applicability of definitions.

The fact remains, both theories share the common characteristics of being unproven and relying on speculation to be believed.

All scientific theories are "unproven". This does not mean that all unproven speculation rises to the level of "theory".