That's like saying modern cosmology is descended from Biblical cosmology, or that there's some connection between Gregor Mendel and a witch doctor who performs rituals to promise desired physical traits in a child. The line of descent isn't straightforward enough to be labeled an "evolution" (not even in the broad Darwinian sense of diverging populations). Outsiders- often moreso than insiders (and at least in the case of anthropology/ethnology)- drive this change, not some natural progression within a field. Even when insiders are involved, outside progress (e.g., application of the scientific method, new developments in epistemology) drives change.
Biblical cosmology is part of Christian metaphysics. The study of the actual physical process of the beginning of the universe is (at least hopefully) relegated to science with a philosophical grounding. A metaphysic isn't even in the same category as a science let alone the same field so the analogy fails.
Scholars in the antiquity such as Plato and Aristotle were doing primitive science as well as philosophy. The body of knowledge of natural science has progressed, partially because the later scientists stand on the shoulders of giants, but also because of advances in technology and engineering (this is separate from the body of knowledge developed by the scientific method though modern engineering may rely upon scientific theories) that warranted physical explanation and improved the reliability of the methods for finding those explanations.
TL;DR: Modeling this as a continuity from pseudoscience to science mischaracterizes a replacement/rejection as a progression from within. Moreover, it suggests that a portion of the pseudoscience lives on in the modernized/professionalized science, when in reality the pseudoscience lives on instead in the lay public's misconceptions. And that's exactly what we're seeing when it comes to eugenics, trans-humanism, etc.
Let's distinguish between the types of scientific theories. Theories such as Newtonian Physics are highly accurate as predictive models for the physical universe. The cannon ball follows the predicted trajectory every time! All modern physics is built upon Newtonian physics. Other theories (and ofc this tends to happen more in biology and the "social sciences") are weak predictive models that are replaced entirely by new models. Phrenology is slain by neurology (and I think all psychology will eventually be destroyed by neurology) but Newtonian physics will never be 'replaced' by a different theory. So some science is born out of progress and some science is born out of revolution. Alchemy (I'm not referring to any esoteric or religious psuedo-sciences
about alchemy) - was a study of the transformation of matter; it was a collection of knowledge attained from physical observances. Is chemistry not a more specific and detailed science of the transformation of matter?
