"Science has not progressed since inception." Give vivid examples, a detailed critique of the statement.
I would tend to disagree with the statement. It depends on how you want to measure the word "progress". Science is an effort to collect and organize knowledge, it is an eternal process of inquiring and testing, of proving and disproving. Science and philosophy had their starts together and are still closely related, in their drive to establish the truths that govern our lives today. But to say science has not progressed since it's inception is a rather misinformed statement.
Let's take astronomy, the study of the heavens, for example. In the ancient Greek's day, the Earth was thought to be the center of the known universe. As thought progressed, an astronomer named Copernicus put forth the insane notion, around the 16th century, that the sun was the center of the universe, and that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun.
Then there's the age-old problem of explaining gravity, of why objects fall towards the Earth, in a downward direction. We've always had gravity, we've always been bound to the Earth by some unseen force, but until Newton came along in the 18th century, no one was able to explain it in rational terms that made sense. Today we know, thanks to Newton's work, that gravity is a force generated between two bodies that have mass and the distance between them.
Last, but not least, the explanation of how our sun produces it's energy has been a subject of much discussion, over the last few millenia, at least. Theories abounded between a really big bonfire, to a strong sense of gravitational attraction. It was not until Einstein formulated his theory of general relativity and explained that energy and matter were directly related that we understood how the sun had lasted all this time, and, barring an unforseen event, will last for quite a while. Nuclear fusion became a process of energy production that would have global ramifications.