> Science isn't defined by outcome. It is defined by process. <
True, and part of that process is that your hypothesis has to be testable/repeatable. How do either Evolutionary Theory or ID (or the Big Bang Theory) meet that qualification? Seems to me they don't and we're talking about science-based conjecture and not science.
It also seems to me that we should distinguish between natural selection (which one can demonstrate by noting the development of anti-biotic resistant microbes) and the origen of species, which is unknowable and beyond the realm of science.
Fair question.
A couple of points. There are other aspects to the definition of science. First, it must be an unbiased estimator. Second, the inference from a test must be an absolute minimum.
What is NOT an aspect of science is that it must be correct. The classical example is Newtons "laws" of motion; all of which are essentially untrue except in the limit of zero velocity.
The big bang theory clearly meets this standard. It is measurable from the Hubble law of expansion, which is consistent from simple geometry with an explosion. However, the stronger argument is the cosmic microwave background. That background is entirely consistent with the Hubble expansion, the Hubble expansion time, and all of quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics. The reason is that you have to use quantum theory to calculate the point at which the radiation background decoupled from the plasma of the early universe.
The point is, two entirely different measures give exactly the same answer, even though they are not related.
Testable, yes. And the *tests* (and/or verifications) have to be "repeatable", *not* the events being studied. Vulcanologists, for example, don't have to grow their own supervolcanos in order to understand how volcanos work at various scales.
How do either Evolutionary Theory or ID (or the Big Bang Theory) meet that qualification?
Easily. For example, see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent . Especially see the subsections on "potential falsification", and the page on "Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method".
Seems to me they don't and we're talking about science-based conjecture and not science.
"Seems to me" you're not entirely clear on how science is actually done and verified.
It also seems to me that we should distinguish between natural selection (which one can demonstrate by noting the development of anti-biotic resistant microbes) and the origen of species,
They're two sides of the same coin -- when different subpopulations diverge far enough via adaptation, they become different species.
which is unknowable and beyond the realm of science.
Horse manure. Again, see the link I provided above. And that's just a layman's overview -- the actual research papers detailing the evidence and the various kinds of tests and confirmations are so numerous and vast that you could literally spend a lifetime trying to read them all, and still not reach the end. No, I'm not exaggerating. Go visit any well-stocked research library, or the library of a major university which specializes in postgraduate degrees in biology.
When the creationists say that there is "no evidence" for evolution, they're lying.