Yes, what is the point of first learning from the great minds that preceded them when they could make far better use of their time in chant and worship, preferably with dimmed lights and incense.
The implications of these observations, if they pass the test, are huge for the sciences (less so for "hard" science, they've already got their uncertainty principle) and politics.
I know what you mean. There are similar huge implications for finding Martians. Probably dressed up well enough in a bunch of pseudo-science that idea could still sell a few books, if it can find its way somehow into a newspaper's column.
Getting facts straight restricts the natural flow of creative juices. Facts are prohibitive. They are the scleroses of the mind.
In your posting history you blast religion, and here you blast science. What approach to understanding are you left with, your political feelings?
Well of course it is since zealous advocates have made claims far more sweeping than Darwin himself: according to them evolution not only answers all questions of biology but act as if it proves God is non-existent to boot. Question the veracity of such claims and it makes their heads explode or they show their Wahhabi'st tolerance.
You're behind the times, Martians have already been found with conjecture that they are the source of life on earth.
Did anyone see the response of another Guardian journalist to the original article? Generally, I second Ricter's thinking on this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/19/darwin-evolutionary-science-media-coverage