Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

I guess I'm a bit slow on the uptake, because I've only just now figured out where you're going. Your arugment is that pseudo-science has made significant contributions to scientific progress in the past, and that by returning to pseudo-scientific practices the progress of science can be enhanced.There are a few significant problems with your viewpoint:

1. Your examples of past scientific efforts incorporating what is known today to be pseudo-science haven't held up to scrutiny. Alchemy was your first example, and as was pointed out, the impossibility of transmutation of elements by chemical means wasn't known at the time. When judging whether past efforts involved pseudo-science one must use the level of scientific knowledge at the time as a measuring stick.
   ​
2. Other times you've claimed error represented pseudo-science, but this hasn't held up either. Lord Kelvin once judged the earth to be no more than a hundred million years old based upon thermodynamic considerations. The discovery that the earth was much older didn't render Kelvin's work pseudo-science, it just meant that the contribution of radioactivity was unknown when he did his measurements and calculations.
   ​
3. Other times you've claimed unscientific sources of inspiration represented pseudo-science. But the source of ideas is not what makes something science. If the phenomena being investigated is natural, if the evidence being gathered is natural, if the work is replicable, if the proposals are testable, then it is science. It makes no difference whether the original inspiration came from a scientific talk or a dream.
   ​
4. Science studies the natural world, and it seeks natural explanations of phenomena. The criteria for acceptable scientific explanations is not whether something avoids metaphysics, but whether it is natural. Anything that is objectively testable is, by definition, natural.

--Percy

No source of inspiration is disallowed in science. You already have your wish.Your book quote advocates keeping the scientific issues of evolution separate from the philosophical, which is pretty much how most evolutionists here already view things.--Percy

If everyone else is reading your posts and length is not a problem then just ignore this comment, but your posts are way too long for me to read. Brief, clear and succinct catches my eye. I can't comment about whether your longer posts are on-topic since I haven't read them. --Percy

I once more note that the sheer length some of your posts prevents me from reading them.--Percy