Sorry, no. The term "theory" does not mean idea or guess or proposal, as might be common usage for the layman. In science, "theory" has a much more specific meaning.
In short, a theory is the current best explanation for a given set of facts. It has been advanced to this level from an hypothesis because it explained all of the relevant facts, and made predictions which were subsequently confirmed. Further, in a mature field of science there is generally only one theory at a time used to explain that given set of facts.
When a field of investigation is young, there will likely be a series of hypotheses proposed to explain the facts. These are modified, or discarded, as the evidence accumulates until only one survives, which then is advanced to the level of a theory.
So when you say that intelligent design is a scientific theory you are incorrect; that would also be giving ID a major "affirmative action" boost that it has not earned through testing and the normal scientific process. ID is still an idea, from which a few testable hypotheses have been derived. Irreducible complexity and Dembski's explanatory filter are two such. The examples of irreducible complexity that Behe proposed have been shown not to be irreducibly complex, and Dembski gave up on his explanatory filter idea just this week.
If you want to bring ID into the realm of science, you have to follow the rules of science. So far ID has not shown any promise of being science, and there is a lot of evidence that it is simply religion dressed up in new clothes.
Yet irreducible complexity is still perfectly valid despite some of Behe’s examples falling through. Furthermore, even if a function could have evolved through other different functions that explanation has limited viability. A vital biological component, without which an organism could not function, would not have been able to evolve from one piece at a time unless the organism could otherwise accomplish that function in some other manner. That is not always possible.
Of course, intelligent design is not a scientific theory either, its just another nice story, sort of like evolution itself. It would be nice if science could focus on actually observing and comprehending the world instead of using its rightful prestige to wage a political\philosophical war against religion.
I guess I stand corrected! I have heard it called a parallel scientific theory by a couple of authors who’ve spoken on cspan.
Excuse me..........
Fill in the blank, Coyoteman: “______ goes before destruction, and a ________ spirit before a fall.” You seem to be destined for destruction, for a fall. Unless a change comes to your heart and mind.