@266. tanstaafl:
“I find the whole idea of we individual humans declaring definitively the nature & process of the origin of “life” (and fighting over our conflicting theories) rather presumptuous.”
Coming to a better understanding of the natural world is the basic mission of science. There is no definitive declaration on the nature or origin of life – just the gradual accumulation of evidence and continual refinement of our understanding of nature and her processes. As you have noted, religious authorities have a poor track record in this area, not being inclined to scientific thinking.
“It seems to me we’ve got a long way to go on thoroughly understanding the question of the origins of “life” or anything else under the sun.”
Indeed we do have a long way to go, but we can’t get there without a vigorous debate – and ultimately, the evolution of our understanding, which is our species biggest evolutionary advantage, depends on us disputing conflicting theories.
“Technically, we may not even get there, our cerebrums simply might not be large enough to grok it, the all & everything”
It is very unlikely we can ever get there if we can’t distinguish a fairy tale from a well-supported scientific hypothesis.
“For the record, I’m pretty sure the brains of liberal democrats…
Are a little too crowded already to let in any light”
I appreciate your humorous link, and point you to a more scholarly perspective on the topic…
political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information
The results show “there are two cognitive styles — a liberal style and a conservative style”
…the results “provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity.”
…
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.”
…
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
…
“There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science,” said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.
Food for thought, if you’re into such things.
Peace.
DS
