That is a cop out. At one time the belief that the Earth was flat was considered scientific and religious fact and was taught in schools. That view was discarded as irrefutable proof was presented to discredit it and , especially the religious faction, had no choice but to adapt. It was a long and painful process BUT it was based on competing ideas and not decided in courtrooms. That is the difference I see with ToE. That is science that has been dictated not by debate in the realm of ideas but in courts that have decided that there is no room for competing dogma. Make no mistake that many in the evolution camp are just as dogmatic in their defense of their science as the most rigid fundamentalist creationist. I see it on this very thread.
You have that completely opposite, the Theory of Evolution has proven itself in the scientific venue, it has done it over and over again, through new discoveries, new evidence and peer review.
ID has done none of that, it makes no predictions, it has not been peer reviewed, it has no evidence, it was attempted to force it into science class via popularism, not scientific validity.
Why has ID not attempted experiments, why has it not made predictions, why has it not been willing to be peer reviewed, because it is not scientific, and never has been.
The reason that it went to court, is because it was trying to bring itself into a science class, before being scientifically vetted, it was trying to sneak in the back door, instead of doing what all scientific theories that are taught in a science class must do.
There is no competition to evolution, because there is no other theory or hypothesis that explains the evidence as well, or scientifically. Id does none of that, and again, attempted to sneak in the back door.
Any scientifically verifiable theory, should be willing to be scientifically vetted, why is ID above this?
Not true. If the theory of evolution is supplanted with a better definition to fit the evidence, then evolution will be left on the trash heap of history, along with all of the other discredited theories. No reputable scientist will continue to hang onto a dead theory.
And the creationists will still be there, attacking the theory that replaces it, using the same invalidated arguments, and still with not one shred of evidence to support their position.
They are not the same. Evolution is science. Creation is religion. Science and religion are not the same. How many times has a new study come out, which changes what we thought about the way things work, the theory is changed to accept the new data or discarded altogether in favor of a new theory, and the creationists scream about how science changes. Of course it changes. That is the very nature of science. As we learn something new, it changes our perspective on the workings of the natural world. Science and religion are not the same.