There are people opposed to science all over the religious spectrum - many Christian, many atheist, many everywhere in between. No argument from me there. On my (short) homepage I point out that spirituality and science are both of importance to the future of our nation and all of humanity, and I seriously mean it.
The primary area of disagreement here is on origins and the interpretation of the fossil record.
It goes much further than that, though. I've always believed that the fossil evidence is given disproportionate attention here, for one. It makes a strong case for evolution, but certainly not the only one. I might not be totally convinced myself if this was the only line of supporting evidence. The genetic evidence is much stronger (but harder to understand to most people, myself included). Biogeography (i.e. where related types of life are found) is also of paramount importance. Add shared morphologies, vestigial organs, observed cases of speciation, ring species, etc. - one can explain away any one or two of these, but all these different and varied supporting points? If evolution didn't occur, it sure seems the Creator went through some great pains to make it appear so. The mere "coincidence" that all these lines of inquiry yield the same picture is what lends so much confidence to the theory - not just one of 'many possible interpretations' of the fossil record.
The Bible also addresses several topics which have been confirmed by science, which the ancients would have had no way of knowing about.
I don't know that that's true, but it's irrelevant as to its authority in spiritual matters, anyway. I don't think accurate science is the point or reason for the Bible. The Bible's credibility comes from the practice of applying its principles and messages in our personal lives and the spiritual strength it gives.
I don't disagree with that either but if someone is not spiritually inclined, the argument is moot because it is not considered valid.
There have been some posters here who have stated that the conflict they see between science and Christianity has caused them to abandon faith/the Bible/Christianity/ whatever they wish to call it in favor of science. There are also others who don't acknowledge the existance of the spiritual realm and so for them, that line of reasoning doesn't work either.
I see the commonality in design because the creatures all live in the same environment and many subsist on the same foods or each other. It would seem that there would need to be similarities so nourishment could be provided.
If all the species were really different, I could see that as an argument against ID also. IOW, why would the designer have designed species so incompatible? Either way, it seems that the ID theory would be discredited.