Take quantum mechanics as a better example. Discussions of quantum mechanics are typically prefaced with warnings about how weird and contradictory things seem at the quantum level. In other words, we are dealing with a field of knowledge that, not only is impossible for our five senses to apprehend, but that contradicts nearly everything we experience in our normal day to day world as mediated through our senses. There is nothing empirical, in the everyday-joe sense in which that philosophy was originally formulated, here. Same goes for Hubble space telescope photography and associated findings, radio astronomy and its findings, the field of genetics and its findings, and so on. We are no longer in the realm of the empirical here: only with the use of very expensive and highly specialized equipment, and years of requisite training, could any of us ever hope to even come close to assenting to the findings of modern science in any proximately empirical way.
If by "success" you mean something that provides the driving engine for societal progress, look in any history book. All past societies had technical entities that generated propserity and advanced civilization. Nothing needs to be written. Unless you mean to say that modernity somehow is uniquely better at it. In which case, I'd ask you to provide the criteria on which you base that judgment. I mean, assuming we will be addressing the question rationally and not, in a sort of knee-jerk way, proclaiming that modernity has so far outstripped past accomplishments that it is beyond comparison. In which case, being a historian, I would invite you to consider the fact that all past cultures have held similar views of themselves and their accomplishments. (I'm not sure what you mean by "Issue with the scientific method": I don't recall having raised such an issue).
When it comes Genesis and the creation, I don't see any natural progression - only God's will.
