That ostracizing of Jung must be some regional thing, because where I'm from (EU) he is an inseparable part of curriculum (as well as transpersonal psychology, but essentially any psychology). It's true, however, that even here are Jung's musings about God not taken very seriously and ascribed to his alleged schizophrenia. His model of mind is on the other hand widely accepted. I would dare to say that even preferred to Freud's one.

With that being said, I guess your understanding of Jung is rather peculiar. According to Jung, archetypes are primary, autonomous, hereditary structures of human unconscious (and yes, they are a result of evolution of human species). Initially they are without content which gets filled in only during a lifetime of an individual whose personal experiences then get attached to archetypal forms. It's called collective because it's present in every human in the same way (similarly as we, collectively, have limbs ... if everything goes as it should, that is). So archetypes shape life at the material level only as a manifestation of human actions. And if Jung mentions metaphysical planes (can't remember now), I'm quite sure that he does not mean anything outside of human psyche.