having sciency-looking accoutrements and trappings is nevertheless bayesian evidence that something is a science. The question is just how good that evidence is.

No, not at all. The question isn't how good that evidence is, the question is what other evidence is there. And in this particular case we have, for example, the lack of theories which can be falsified.

I would have no problems with calling evopsy, say, a field of study. But saying it's a science implies rigor and tests against reality which are, um, absent.