The definition that you are using is just a dishonest attempt to change the terms of the debate.
What is the difference between your definition and the one that I used, "evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." How is it dishonest?
Intelligent Design is simply a theory that states that the origin of some systems have an intelligent cause. I you don’t believe in ID you must believe that automobiles evolved through natural unguided processes. Every one knows that cars are designed. Its settled science. ID is settled science that is indisputable.
I don't think that ID is disputed when it comes to cars, although there are some engineers who I am sure would disagree. Your analogy fails though because ID is based on the Theory of Evolution. The only quibble that ID has with the Theory of Evolution that it claims that a God designed life, not natural selection. ID agrees with every other aspect of evolution, even "that life began as a simple celled organism and evolved into more complex forms." ID simply states that the evolution was guided.
Only an ignorant anti science Darwinist would question ID. ID is a fact, depending on what the definition of is is, just like evolution.
You are correct, ID is not falsifiable. It can't be disproved. The only problem with ID is that it has no value at all, it makes no predictions, it simply says that things are the way they are because that is the way things are. It really is arguing over the definition of what is is.
Evolution as you define it is completely uncontroversial. Thats not what we are talking about though. Decent from a common ancestor through an unguided process is controversial and that is what is being discussed.
ID is based on the Theory of Evolution.
ID is not based on the ToE. ID is based on the fact that the best explanation for the origin of some biological systems is an intelligent cause.
The only problem with ID is that it has no value at all, it makes no predictions, it simply says that things are the way they are because that is the way things are.
This argument is ridiculous. According to you, if biological systems were in fact intelligently designed, there would no value in understanding this fact? It would be better to ignore the facts and pretend that neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for the source of biological diversity? Your basic argument boils down to Darwinism is the truth and therefore no other line of questioning can possibly lead anywhere. Its pure dogma and betrays your anti science sentiments.