I’m not seeing how accepting evolutionary biology or climate change leads
it to become “mere engineering.”
Syntheses in science also aren’t derived from a single body of authority
(or university/school), but by many working in collaboration. It may be
convenient to refer to “scientists” as monolithic sensu a church
authority, but I doubt anyone who is familiar with how science is done (and
reads any primary literature) is going to agree that “closed and static” is
really descriptive of science.
So the arugment of Established Authority Is Problematic appears based on
fear of what might happen, not what is happening. Without reasons more
substantial than fear, uncertainty, or doubt, there’s not much there there.
Now, about art derived from authority: i.e., art with utility, accuracy,
and representative of current science, as in, say, good paleoart.
I suppose some (who might have a superfical regard) could see that as “mere
decor.” But could it be possible that artists aren’t speaking to those
people, but to folk who might like to imagine what life was like in the
Paleo/Meso/Cenozoic?
