You did do a pretty good job of describing why today's "science" (the word is a straight borrow from the Greek "skientia" meaning "to know" -- pretty sweeping claim) is actually intellectually impoverished. Funny how "Humean" doubts didn't seem to bog down the experiments, observations, and conclusions of men who were unabashed Christians when it came down to metaphysics. Not even Mr. Darwin himself who at least gave plausible lip service to a Christian view of God when he wrote his Origin of Species.
Uh, huh. Intellectually impoverished. The very first words that leap into mind upon reviewing science at the end of the 20th century. Your suggestion that "to know" means not to be systematically critical of one's basic assumptions, in the face of the changes that have occured in virtually every fundamental assumption of science since 1900, is duly noted, and alloted all the respect it deserves.
Funny how "Humean" doubts didn't seem to bog down the experiments, observations, and conclusions of men who were unabashed Christians when it came down to metaphysics.
Oh really? Based on what double blind field study?
Not even Mr. Darwin himself who at least gave plausible lip service to a Christian view of God when he wrote his Origin of Species.
Darwin was well on his way to being ordaned in the Anglican church before he got distracted by sea turtles. It would be a good guess that it was more than lip service.