Sure.
Jung presents a case for religion as objectively superior to purely rationalistic systems when it comes to understanding, integrating, and making whole the collective subconscious and its respective contents within the individual. In short, our subconscious speaks in highly "irrational", symbolic processes, and modern intellectualism badly fails when it comes to managing and treating pathologies of this subconscious. Religion, however, does not, due to its in innately symbolic nature, and consequent affinity with subconscious processes.
The book is not derived from clinical experience, as far as I can tell. The majority of the book revolves around analysing psychological commonalities between different cultures, religions and mythologies, and using it to synthesize and explain archetypes and their meaning in our dreams / imagination. It does so in a manner of objective comparison of motifs and themes. The definition of science here seems unimportant to me. The method of enquiry is effective.
Though it is a topic I haven't yet seen Jung speak much on, I don't believe he at all attempts to refute evolution, but rather employs it as part of the puzzle to understanding the utility and value of religion in the psychic experience of the modern individual. Not to mention the psychic health of an entire nation.
