Its not the application of the scientific method. Its an educated guess based on physical evidence, and nothing more. Given that, its safe to say that we've established that we've moved into the area of a judicial proceeding, and not a scientific one.
This is bad judgment on our part as a society, and in no way supports your position.
Are you saying that if someone is accused of raping a women that all DNA evidence, fiber evidence, and fingerprint evidence should be thrown out?
What I don't like is one sided materialistic interpretations/presentations of evidence in what are essentially judicial, non-scientific, proceedings.
Science is the method of interpreting evidence through methodological naturalism. ID is the method of interpreting evidence through methodological supernaturalism. The two can't be mixed. If you don't like science, fine, I'm not telling you that you have to like it. That people are found guilty through scientific evidence is a fact. It doesn't matter whether or not scientific evidence is used in court. What matters is that it is scientific evidence that is used to reconstruct past events. If I were to use methodological supernaturalism I could claim that a demon planted the DNA. I don't see that line of evidence entered into court very often. The reason is that science has shown itself as being trustworthy whereas supernaturalism is inherently flawed in consistently describing reality.
Special creation has not met any such fate, or a young earth. The only reason its viewed that way in the scientific community is becuase of materlialistic bias, and no other.
It has met such a fate within the realm of science. There is a bias in science, a bias towards naturalistic, not materialistic, mechanisms. If you don't like what science concludes then abandon science. However, don't try and insert non-natural (ie supernatural) causes into science and pretend that it is legitimate science.
The Bible is a written testimony, from beginning to end, of what The Lord Jesus has to say to the world about everything. Allowing biblical accounts in the classroom is no diferent than allowing the Lord himself.
I am not here to tell you what to believe in. What I am arguing is that ID and creationism fail as science and should not be taught as science. However, they work well in philosophy and theology.
We've established that the realm of assessing the earth's history is essentially a judicial proceeding, and less of a scientific one. Eyewitness accounts from credible people are highly valuable in judicial proceedings.
I think you have confused my points. Forensic science is a historical science that is accepted by the public as good science. Forensic science is USED by the judiciary branch of this country. However, it is still a science in itself. Thus, it is publicly accepted that the scientific method can reconstruct past events through the evidence left in the present. This is the type of scientific inquiry that supports the theory of evolution. Eyewitness accounts are considered the lowest form of evidence in science, and for good reason. DNA, fingerprints, and fibers can not be biased, but testimony can be, either intentionally or due to psychological factors. That is why every scientific study tries to quantitate it's results instead of relying on subjective opinion, such as that found in eyewitness testimony.
IMO, this is a good example of how evolution has poluted science. As long as its fits the evolutionary paradigm, even guess work qualifies as science, and that is a sad state of affairs.
Until anyone can use evidence found in the natural world that falsifies evolution then science will continue to use it. There are speculative evolutionary pathways that are bandied about, but they are clearly labelled as just that.
You use the word "speculation" quite a bit. By speculation do you mean "not knowing absolutely" or "without any positive evidence to support the claim"?