It sounds like there are two critisisms on science and waldorf.
The content is not scientific, ie man and animal.
The scientific method is not taught.
In my experience we started with scientific method in grade 7 in a very basic way - pretty much the way Dimitra described it. I remember being very excited to see a bunson burner in the classroom.
Yes, in grades 8-13 we did have a laboratory for physics and chemistry and we did dissection in biology (although I abstained from the dissection for so called moral reasons when I was 16 - not knowing that I would end up dissecting cadavers at university). I was however given that option and given some other project to do for that time.
I am OK with my child not being taught expressly in the the scientific method before they are 11 - 12. I know that they will learn about it, and if my DS is a lover of science, I will meet his needs at home if I am not happy with the school (whether it is waldorf or not)
Eurythmy - in my mind it is not pure anthroposophy. Yes, it's rooted in anthroposophy and there are no other terms other than anthroposophical ones to describe what the person is doing - if you ask a Eurythmist. I do see something that could be beneficial in terms of co-ordination and developing an awareness of the space around you as well as listening skills. Often the teachers are highly problematic - but that does not negate the possibility that there could be some worth to the movement itself. Nope, no scientific studies on this one - not today anyway