Hi there, FWIW I don’t assume or believe that you are unaware of the differences among these important but often misused terms. (Often misused but also rarely well defined during a discussion–most misunderstandings and even arguments would evaporate once people wrote something like “…and by ‘theory’ I mean…”)
What I do see in your writing is carelessness. (@Mercer has noted this carelessness before, and you should listen.) You wrote a treatise on ID as a “model” in a conversation that wasn’t about that. You were writing (it seems) to disagree with what I wrote about – ironically – a need for clarity in defining what we mean when we write/speak about “ID.” It looks to me as if you ignored the comments (by me) that you were using as your foil to write your denunciation of “ID as a scientific model.”
Unfortunately lost in this now uninteresting conversation is my question of whether you are willing to distinguish ideas and beliefs about design, including “intelligent design,” from the pervasive dishonesty of people who travel in the ID movement. It takes work, I’ll grant you that, but the alternative is to gibber like an ignoramus and thereby to join at least one Hall of Dishonor that is eternally linked to the ID movement itself.