I just realized I made a significant typo a few days ago in posting this:

(me)...Just wondering what folks think about whether James successfully shows that religion is "wholly debunked by science."

...I do understand that James is NOT trying to debunk religion, quite the opposite, but anyway the conversation continues.... Sorry for the confusion.

(Jesse) Religion, too, must accept the common standard of judging beliefs by their fruits. According to that standard one can never be bound by eternally fixed commandments or creeds. ... You might say, then, that for James science and religion humble each other (or "unstiffen" each other, to use a Jamesian word.)

Can fruits inform commandments, and can commandments produce fruits? For instance, Jesus said "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:12) One could argue which came first, love or the commandment to love, but can't it still be an "eternally fixed commandment"?

I like the idea that science and religion can "humble" or "unstiffen" each other. The word "commandment" perhaps turns people off because it does have a "stiff" sort of sound to it. But listen to Psalm 119:45-48:

I will walk about in freedom,
    for I have sought out your precepts.
^{I will speak of your statutes before kings}    and will not be put to shame,
for I delight in your commands
    because I love them.
I reach out for your commands, which I love,
    that I may meditate on your decrees.

The Psalmist seems to have encountered some kind of "law" that, rather than restrict freedom, actually BESTOWS it. He goes on and on, for 176 verses, singing the praises of the "law" of God. In James 1:25 we also read: "But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do." So, again, it is possible for "law" to produce freedom (whereas "freedom" to do whatever we like can sometimes lead to enslavement, another subject).