If all a theory needs is circumstantial evidence in order to be scientific, then you have no business disqualifying intelligent design as a scientific theory. If it requires more, then the theory of evolution is not qualified to be called as such.
If "proofs" are the sole domain of mathematics, then why get one's panties in a twist when reminded that evolution (in the wide sense) is a theory as opposed to a proven fact?
ID doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory.
It does if held to the standards required by evolutionists for their "theory." Furthermore, intelligent design enjoys thousands of examples for direct observation at any given moment where intellect is at work. That's more than one can say for what is essentially a philosophy of history concocted by the imagination based upon the assumption that where there is a common form there must be common history.
Wikipedia has a good, plain language description:
A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.A theory is not the final word. It is, at best, the current state of knowledge, subject to change. Newton's gravity was found wanting, augmented (but not totally replaced) by the Theory of General Relativity, which required quantum theory to make a complete picture. Scientists are still trying to reconcile the apparent conflicts between relativity and quantum theory, yet we know that both work in the real world (unless you're one of the "Quantum physics is bunk" nuts).
then why get one's panties in a twist when reminded that evolution (in the wide sense) is a theory as opposed to a proven fact?
Nobody does. The problem is that when creationists call it a "theory" they mean it in the vernacular, while we mean "theory" in the scientific sense. They have two very different meanings.
It does if held to the standards required by evolutionists for their "theory."
What are the conditions to falsify ID? What predictions does it make?
Furthermore, intelligent design enjoys thousands of examples for direct observation at any given moment where intellect is at work.
Again, some applicable examples, please.