There is nothing but pure speculation when it comes to both the origins of life (under any theory) and macroevolution. Science has not proved how we got here. Science has not proved that we evolved from the same organism. "(1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." Where is the science showing the origin of life (i.e., the very beginning) and macroevolution (i.e., changes from one species to another) using the preceding tenants?
I question certain parts of evolution because many parts of it do not make any sense (see my thread on Billions of Missing Links). I don't question parts of the theory of evolution to try and prove ID. I don't believe I've ever made any argument regarding ID and science.
I have no idea what ID has contributed to any field of science. Never looked at it.
What has the untested, unproved big bang et al. theory and the untested, unproved theory of macroevolution ever contributed any field of science?
Yes it is speculation. It is speculation grounded in science. Do you think that Einstein went to mercury to observe and explain the Daisy petal effect of precession? No. He developed mathematical theories for it.
Inferences are part of science as well. Remember that.
You cling to the same fundamental misgivings time and again:
*The scientific method has not proven everything re origins therefore it is on par with ID
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=trueNow that I've shown you how science works re our origins, show me how ID explains it.
"Billions of missing links"
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.