> The point is more that back then, science wasn't nearly as commonplace. Have you even seriously studied the history of science? Are you seriously referring t

> The point is more that back then, science wasn't nearly as commonplace. Have you even seriously studied the history of science? Are you seriously referring to the 17th century with a lack of science? The reality is that science was flourishing, and had been extremely popular for centuries, even millennia, before that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient... The Renaissance was in full bloom, Leonardo da Vinci was already dead and his legacy was being explored in depth, Galileo lived until 1642, the grand cathedrals and basilicas of Europe were being built. In fact, for millennia before this, great buildings such as the Hagia Sophia, the Pyramids, the ziggurats, the Mayan and Aztec Temples, these are all feats of engineering and science. In Arizona, the Hohokam people had built a network of canals, hand-dug with no machinery or even animals, to irrigate the arid desert land that they then cultivated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam If these are not feats of science, if these do not demonstrate a most commonplace culture of science, then I don't know what to tell you.