[Alacarte]

How familiar are you with world history during that time?

Major technological advancements are pretty easy to see. After the greeks and the romans, advancement almost stopped for 1500 years, until we adopted naturalism.

There seems to have been a certain "lack of advancement" since Darwin appeared on the scene, too.

On the contrary, technology for the past 400 years has advanced exponentially, even with your evil darwinism. Since Darwin we've had germ theory, space travel, antibiotics, computing, nuclear energy, mass information mediums... Biology makes no sense outside of evolution. So everything the life sciences gives us, is in part due to evolution. Not that science 'owes' us anything.

But please advise as to how conjectural recapitulations of history serve the interest of science in the present moment, let alone qualify as science.

I was just responding to you saying the church didn't hurt science, I didn't start the discussion, sorry.

Does Einstein stand on the shoulders of Darwin?

Einstein was a physicist... Darwin was a biologist... I'm not sure I see your point.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Einstein was a physicist... Darwin was a biologist... I'm not sure I see your point.

My point is that science can do very well without the Philosophy of Evolution.

[Fester Chugabrew]

On the contrary, technology for the past 400 years has advanced exponentially, even with your evil darwinism."

More like "in spite of" Darwinism. None of the discplines you mentioned excelled due to Darwinism. Science excels where critical thinking is employed. That seems to be out of vogue in certain public schools these days.

was just responding to you saying the church didn't hurt science, I didn't start the discussion, sorry.

By "conjectural recapitulations of history" I meant the Philosophy of Evolution, not your question about the history of science. The Philosophy of Evolution is a mental construct that attempts to ascribe scientific merit to itself. It's not working.