John 10:10 writes:
I too do not deny that the universe has evolved since the beginning point in time.
We need to distinguish between "the universe has evolved" and biological evolution. These are two different meanings of evolve, the first the natural language meaning of change over time and the second the technical meaning from the biological theory.
The main point of ID is this:
How did we get from the beginning of the universe to where we are now?
That's not a point, it is a question.
The principle objection to ID is that it is not science, and thus does not belong in the
science class. Many also object that the proponents of ID are mostly creationists who are trying to do a sneaky end-run around the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution.
I have no objection whatsoever to evolution being taught in science classrooms as "theory," but I strongly object to evolution being taught as "fact" in science classrooms, which is now the case in most science classrooms.
Evolution is both theory and fact. However what is meant by "evolution" when speaking of it as theory is different from what is meant by that word when speaking of it as fact. Evolution, as theory, is a scientific framework and a system of empirical principles for studying biological systems (including speciation). Evolution as fact is what has actually been observed or inferred from evidence, on biological change.
ID is the most plausible reason how we got from the beginning of the universe to where we are now.
To a scientist, it is no reason at all. People used to say things such as "nature abhors a vacuum" and "what goes up must come down". Science has long since rejected these as false reasoning, because they do not get at the mechanisms. ID as reason is just like the anger of the gods as reason for a volcano (or a hurricane). It has no scientific merit.
If evolution was taught as "theory only" in science classrooms, ID would not be asking for equal time to present an alternate reason how we came to exist.
The trouble is that you are probably thinking of "theory" as "unproven guess". But that is not what the word means at all when talking about scientific theories.