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.
Nobody does. The problem is that when creationists call it a "theory" they mean it in the vernacular . . .
Whether the word is used in the vernacular or the technical sense, it is not the place of evolutionists to make positive statements in science class when their theory, like all theories, is subject to competing theories. It is most certainly not their place to have their theory established by law as the only one allowed to be spoken in public schools. That's what I call having one's panties in a twist, and that is precisely the motivation behind the recent Dover decision.
What are the conditions to falsify ID? What predictions does it make?
In regard to the first question: Chaos, i.e. the disintegration of particle matter into such a form as to make the universe unintelligible and science impossible. As an aside, if you are going to make falsification the ultimate test of whether a theory is scientific, then you will have to discard every axiom science works with, because no axiom can be universally tested, and all are thus non-falsifiable.
In regard to the second question, intelligent design predicts that organized matter will be found, and will demonstrate cause and effect.
One need look no further than a typical post on FR to have an example of intelligent design that is scientifically accessible. One need look no further than a single atom or molecule to have evidence from which to infer intelligent design.