A great deal of what science has shown us is counterintuitive. That the sun does not move about the earth, for example. Some self indulgent mind sets are just no good at coping with things that are counterintuitive. What they happen to feel is all important. I wonder, if they ever understood that, would they keep on exposing themselves so?
You put it very well and yes the sun going around the earth is a good example. I imagine the earth being sort of the center of whatever what was out there was also sort of natural and our scientific down grading to a speck among billions must have come as something of a shock to a lot of folks. When you get into some psychological biases it can get very troubling in sociological and political terms. One that particularly comes to mind is our tendency to see conspiracies where they don't exist.
What comes most immediately to my mind is teleological thinking. People, evolved to understand why others behave as they do, tend to project human-style motivations and purposes onto everything. When children first learn to talk, their questions always take for granted purpose, and even agency. When a child asks why the sky is blue, he's not asking about Rayleigh scattering, he's asking what PURPOSE blueness serves. And of course, if everything exists for a purpose, there must be some entity to possess and embody that purpose.
I remember wanting to know why the sky is blue but I don't recall associating my question with any particular purpose, just WHY - fill in the blank. I think a lot of the human purpose element is associated with fear and alienation and the desire for security. I know my formerly agnostic step brother flipped into becoming a super committed Catholic based as he admitted on a need for a parent he never really felt he had; so substitute sky dad. A lady I knew became a communist based on her wish to replace a dog eat dog world ie. capitalism with a system where everybody would have to be nice to each other ie socialism. No matter how sophisticated we get culturally it's interesting how things track back to some sort of primitive animal concern.
Evolution does not change from one generation to the next...it takes thousands or millions or billions of years.
My contention was if we have 'evolved brains' assuming this meant we posses high intelligence, at this level we should not have personal bias when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions. We should not be arguing about evolution or gravity or the Universe, etc.
Well gravity interestingly we don't argue about but evolution we do. Maybe part of our "high intelligence" isn't that high. And consider that many who do accept evolution in principle twist it into a sick political ideology. Interesting also is the Einstein conception of gravity is very different from our general conception of a large body exerting a quasi-magnetic pull force.
Oh no! Evolution is like a walking journey, with each generation representing a single step. One step may not be a journey, but single steps are all you have to work with. The more steps, the further the journey can take you.
All I can say is that we know what we know at the moment. And we can take what we know and extrapolate that into educated guesses. A climatologist cannot predict the future but with some historical data, and computer models, and current global data, they can provide an educated guess. The key IMO to science versus religion or politics or whatever bias du jour that exists, is that true science keeps an open mind to new information, new challenges, and this means what we know tomorrow may be quite different than what we know today...and therefore we adjust our thinking and continue forward...
