Science has counter attacked itself. A comparison of stone age science and modern science.

No doubt modern civilisation has taken effect due to advancement in scientific discovery, which has to a great extent shape our world.

 Ancient civilisation no doubt was a period of ignorance, which influenced so many man made believe system. Science at this period was at its lowest, scientist of those age lacked sophistication and keen of observation. They merely formulated theories most of which were later discovered to be a product of lack of keen observation and ignorance. However some of these theories would turn out to pave the way for modern scientists to consolidate on, which has led to the numerous discoveries and advancement modern science has achieved till date. Some of those theories of old age science are: the theory of spontaneous generation (1773 by John T Nedham), in which he boiled a broth of meat, which he then cover in a container and thereafter he discovered the development of
maggot. However, it was later discovered that he didn't allow the broth sufficient time while boiling, so the microorganisms in the meat were not subjected to sufficient temperature. Notable scientist like Aristotle had the same view with his teachers, such as Anaximander and Democritus Luis pasteur (1900s) carried out the same experiment, subjecting the meat broth to sufficient temperature, there was no growth. And the theory was disproved.

Another was the theory of use and disuse of body part (by Jene Lamack), a French scientist who said that the early giraffe had short neck, but as the tree they fed on continually grew, their neck increased in length in order for them to continually adapt to their mode of feeding. This theory known as the theory of adaptation, was later disproved because it lacked substance and evidence. Though adaptation is a natural instinct for survival, but it was never a cause of a change in figure or form of an organism.

Yet another was the theory of evolution, though a topic of controversy, proposed by (Charles Darwin) an English scientist, this theory still stands today, as some scientist still believed in it based on recent archaeological discovery of fossil records. This theory led to the movement "Darwinism", which is still practiced by some few. However, if evolution was/is ever a part or constituent of nature, then it has to be a continuum. So, what then will be the fate of present day organisms in the distant future, since present day organisms according to evolution ones existed in a lowly form?
The reality is, fossil records, is not an accurate enough measurement of history, as archaeologists are humans and their measurements or observations are not accurate enough to define history.

Another was Einstein's theory of static universe(also known as einstein's universe), Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant, it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein, who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.

How it was Proven Wrong:
The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift, the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us, and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career.

Another is the ancient scientific believe in phrenology. Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its days, phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.

How it was Proven Wrong:
Even during the heydays of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous.

Another is the blank slate theory: One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.

How it was Proven Wrong:

While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which certain gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.

These and more were inconsistencies of science from the age of immateriality to the present/modern age of scientific advancement. No doubt science has played a great role in the advancement of civilization, however it had its short comings, which led man astray for ages before it(science) again brought man out of such falsehood it once created.
Before the advent of science, literature and philosophy took precedence in the affairs of men, with little effect to civilisation. But science totally changed the course of history. though it had its dark side, but it is most often seen in the light it came forth with.

Mya&Myself😊