Looking at the comments, I find it kind of odd that this issue is polarizing. What exactly is the nature of the divide between the extremes of the people who t

Looking at the comments, I find it kind of odd that this issue is polarizing. What exactly is the nature of the divide between the extremes of the people who think we've had no progress vs those who think we've had considerable progress? I would hazard a guess that the "substantial-progress" crowd is assuming that physics and chemistry have been largely figured out and there's nothing else to do there except tidying up some loose ends and working with what we've got and the only place progress could possibly come from is through information technology manipulating what we have. The no-progress crowd are waiting for the next big fundamental breakthrough like the discovery of the microbe, quantum physics, and electricity. I still don't understand why the vitriol is thrown around on this one so hard by the "substantial progress" crowd. Maybe they think that the "no-progress" crowd are a bunch of lunatics for believing there are fundamental things that we could discover that could significantly increase our understanding of the fundamentals of physics, chemistry or biology.