When there are no facts to refute a theory, the theory is taken as an assumption for the most likely cause of something. When there are facts, the theory, to be scientifically acceptable, must be taught as a theory and it is essential to proper scientific practices to include other explanations.
I didn't ignore it, I pointed out the other parts of the definition.
Those aren't "other parts of the definition," they're less-preferred definitions. In a dictionary, the numbers mean alternate definitions of a word. The smaller the number, the more common in useage. You tried to disprove the #1 definition by applying the #5 and #6 definitions. That's hardly a strong argument.
Besides, you're ignoring the fact that "theory" has one very specific meaning when it's in a scientific context. When used in science, theory doesn't mean "guess," it doesn't mean "untested or untried." It means that there is solid evidence to back it up. It means that it has been tested, and the evidence has backed it up.
When there are no facts to refute a theory, the theory is taken as an assumption for the most likely cause of something. When there are facts, the theory, to be scientifically acceptable, must be taught as a theory and it is essential to proper scientific practices to include other explanations.
Only if the other explanations are even vaguely scientific. ID isn't. If you can come up with an alternate theory that even begins to justify the scientific meaning of the word, then we'll add it to the curriculum.
We don't need facts to "refute" the theory. That's called proving a negative, and logically it can't be done. We need its proponents to show any evidence to support it. They are the ones making a positive claim, and it falls upon them to demonstrate the authenticity of their claim.
You keep speaking of "facts." Facts are very problematic for fans of ID, because there is decided lack of hard evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The only evidence is emotionalism and wishful thinking. People wanting it to be so is not evidence that it is.
There is strong, solid, real, physical evidence for evolution. We see it in action, we see it in the fossil record, it makes predictions, it is falsifiable and it gets more and more supported the more evidence we discover.
Try again when ID can rise above the #6 definition in your dictionary.