Um, it works remarkably well?
It can be woefully wrong in the short term. (See studies which say coffee is good for you/bad for you/good for you. Global warming. Etc.)
Cutting edge science can frequently be mistaken, that is why it is subject to revision and peer review. Well-established and tested theories, though have proven their validity over and over again.
Some of Einstein's theories are being tested only now. Some can never be tested.
These statements are completely untrue. Einstein's theories have proven themselves to be remarkably accurate along many separate lines of inquiry.
It relies on specialists for verification.
This is a necessity. Have a better idea?
This produces a corrupt result as these specialists depend on each other to keep their area active and to draw grant dollars from other areas.
Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other. Scientists profit from proving/disproving new theories, and have to withstand each other's attacks constantly.
The grant system also rewards favored areas of science and exaggerated claims of success, which leads to greater problems in the area of my first bullet point.
And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window. That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research. There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.
But I think your question is more revealing than my answer.
Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent, now. What would you suggest we replace it with?
Really? Is that right? Not to hear the zealots tell it. When science has spoken, all must obey.
But bad science does a lot of damage in the short term.
Well-established
Everybody keeps saying this and I'm not sure how to quantify "well-".
These statements are completely untrue.
Note that I said "some":Brownian Motion Under The Microscope (Einstein Nobel Prize Discovery Questioned)
It relies on specialists for verification.
This is a necessity. Have a better idea?
Not at all. But it's a flaw.
Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other.
I beg to differ. There is definitely an attempt to keep some subfields alive and there is an undercurrent of inertia which leads to certain beliefs and theories gaining prominence over others for no good reason other than the feel of the participating scientists.
And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window.
Not before the money is spent and the alchemists have moved on to a new project.
That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research.
This is quite true. Rep. Patrick Kennedy is the countries most famous "scientist". The media goes to him for expertise. I am not kidding.
But it seems that the scientific community gets a lot less worked up over the misuse of science than over this whole ID thing.
There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.
I'm beginning to see "science" as an overbroad term.
Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent,
Ah, it's about me, is it? How very unscientific.
In discussions like this, we should be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother. Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence. There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case -- that is, belief in things evidenced by sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof -- there is no need for faith.
In between mother and the Pythagorean theorem are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are scientific theories -- logical, testable, and therefore falsifiable explanations of the available, verifiable data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence).
Too many creationists come into these threads and appear to be clueless about the vital distinctions between reason and faith. There are vitally significant differences between an axiom and an article of dogma, fact and fantasy, hypothesis (or a more general theory) and conjecture. These fundamental differences allow us to distinguish reason-based science from faith-based teaching. They are commonly confused, but they are very different intellectual enterprises.
The theory of evolution is far more than a wild imaginary belief (such as belief in Zeus or the tooth fairy). Darwin proposed his theory as an explanation for the proliferation of species that we observe. It was scientific, in that it was a rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect explanation that fit the data. This was about 150 years ago. Since then, hundreds of thousands of fossils have been uncovered, and NONE has been found that contradicted the theory. This alone is powerful evidence, as the theory predicts that all fossils will conform to the theory, so each new fossil find is therefore a test of the theory; and the theory successfully passes each such test. Purely theological matters are not capable of such testing, and thus theology is not scientific. The same can be said of quasi-theological propositions like Intelligent Design.
Then there's the matter of "proof." Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because at least in principle, a counter-example might be discovered. Theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported by the facts they purport to rationally explain and by the predictions which they make. All scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) are subject to revision if new data is discovered which necessitates this. When a scientific theory (such as evolution) has a long history of being supported by the evidence, the most appropriate word for acceptance of the theory is usually "confidence," not "faith."
Useful website in this context: Do You Believe in Evolution?