Therefore, they say that evolution is a metaphysical doctrine of the same type as, but opposed to, the sort of religious or philosophical position taken by the idealist. Evolution, which shows the appearance of design does not imply design, is seen to undercut this eternal truth, and hence they argue that it must be false. It should be noted that many evolutionists think that the mere fact and scientific theory of evolution in no way prohibits further moral or spiritual meaning, and many do not think that any particular purpose to the universe is implied just by evolution, but requires some religious or philosophical commitment. Science functions the same way for Hindus as for Catholics, for Frenchmen as for Americans, for communists as for democrats, allowing for localised variations that are ironed out after a while. And when cosmologies are given in ancient scriptures that involve solid heavens, elephants and scarab beetles, science shows them to be unqualifiedly false as descriptions of the physical world as it is observed.
Science can rule out a metaphysical claim, then.
I don't think so. Many things claimed by metaphysical views such as fundamentalist Christian biblical literalism are not themselves metaphysical claims. Many of those who do hold religious views take the approach that they get their religion from their scriptures and their science from the scientific literature and community. Of course not. While some extreme cultural relativists do try to claim that science is no more than the sum of its cultural environments, this view fails to explain how it is that science gets such consistent results and acquires such broad agreement on matters of fact.