It doesn't explain the specific patterns we see around us because it is compatible with *any* pattern. We could have modern horses in the cambrian and ID would be compatible with it. Mix the fossil record up in any way you want and ID would still be just as compatible.
So clearly the actual pattern of the fossil record does not test ID at all. ID is guaranteed to be compatible no matter how it is arranged. Therefore ID does not explain the specific pattern we do see.
There you go again, adding to a definition. Look at the definition of "theory" again and see of the words "well-tested" are in there.
I don't have to look up definitions. I know what a scientific theory is and I can put it into my own words. A n explaination such as "Earthquakes happen because of hurricanes" is a testable explaination, but until it is well tested it remains a hypothesis.
If you want to use another explanation for the presence of organized matter and the laws that govern it, have at it, but please understand your assumptions, like those of ID, will be treated as speculative.
Sure because it is philosophy.
Same goes for the theory of evolution. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained by "natural" causes.
Actually, that makes it the best theory then, because it best fits most of the evidence. You apparently believe some other force is responsible for the presence of organized matter and predicatable laws that govern it. What scientific cause do you propose other than an almighty, intelligent agent?