Darwinism vs. "Intelligent Design"

I guess I'm thinking that a lot of the people complaining about the teaching of Intelligent Design are being a bit thin skinned.

Hugh Hewitt is more speaking of the irresponsible reporting, or editorializing of WaPo. The article I didn't find too outlandish, though they lack the level of reasonable reporting that Hewitt is talking about.

On the topic itself though, I'm unhappy with teaching Intelligent Design as a theory. I'll admit I'm a believer in the strict definition of Theory.

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Most of the arguments I've found online against evolutionary theory are trying to make out that there are holes in the theory. It's a scientific theory, not a scientific LAW. LAWs are fully provable, which includes reproducibility of the results. A theory is an offered explanation. And when it comes down to the argument of holes, Intelligent Design has no cloth for the number of holes.

An article at "How Stuff Works" Holes in Evolution Theory shows some of the arguments against Darwinism, and gives some of the responses from science. On the other hand, I can't find anything that I would call scientifically reasonable for support of the Intelligent Design theory.

This article is an interesting view of the theories. They pull out the Aristotelian four causes. You may just want to skip this. It's a bit long in the tooth. It's from Skeptical Inquirer.

If Intelligent Design is allowed, which theory do we select? Do we just assume the Christian religion is correct? I would argue not. Then to what amount of information for all the various religious theories do you go to? I don't think this has a place in academia at any level.

What do you open yourself up to when you accept forcing the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools? Are you going to allow flat earth theory? Are you going to allow teaching of all the Conspiracy theories in history of political science?