I think your point about architecture versus science is a good thing to think about. On one end, I agree with everything you're saying. On the other end, I see that architecture only works due to a large set of bombproof civil engineering practices employed both in the past to lay down the principles of architecture and continuously to validate that the work of the architects won't kill anyone.

My understanding is that these people are crucial to the success of any architecture project.

So with that I might ask whether the foundations for CS have been laid and whether the built-in civil engineers we employ are sufficiently able to do their jobs.

There is an immediate question as to whether we should care... and I'll just wave that aside for the moment since I have as least an aesthetic horse in the race that we should care.

After that we might ask if the founders of modern CS have done a sufficient job laying their foundations so we can use them. I'd believe there is some significant debate about whether this is true (Dijkstra would argue we're not even close, is my guess).

I'm willing to put a little, conservative bet on the idea that even if the "founders" all agreed their work was done that they'd be wrong, too. I just think this field is too young.