In most species adults die off after reproducing, probably because it helps evolution if all the old experiments are cleanly washed away.

This is pretty incoherent. The authors of the Constitution were rightly afraid of corruption in government power, but their solution, as you point out, was to set government power in opposition to itself.

This still doesn't address the problem that good government comes from people governing well, not from more or less of a quantity of "government". Thinking along those terms is merely replacing the relevant question with a nonsensical one.

That's not what revelation means.

"Most people learn what they were taught and then grow from there. "

Most people learn how major discoveries in science were reached. This is above and beyond learning of just the results of the discovery.

"Thus, scientific understanding is very much built upon the shoulders of giants just as religious beliefs are."

Giants aren't necessary for religion and are unwanted anyway, since there isn't anywhere for them to stand.

  "IMO, the only conflict between those two philosophies lies in the minds and hearts of those who reject religion. "

The history of science is a centuries long displacement of religion as the dominant mode of thought. The conflict, such as it is, is an utter rout. It's just slower moving than anything you can follow, apparently. It's also still on-going. How many people still believe in a soul? Almost everyone, I expect. Probably about the same fraction of people who believed humans were created and not evolved in 1850.

"So spare me the "scientists know it all" mantra. Science without morals and ethics is just a path to destruction."

Strawman much?

"National Socialism and Communism as examples of political systems driven almost exclusively by scientific considerations"

Quite the contrary. Like most political leaders, they were enthusiastic about scientific concepts that fit their world view, but Nazis and Communists were extremely antagonistic to any science which might threaten it.

The most scientific oriented government, both in policy and origin, is undoubtedly the modern democracies, created by men who were careful to study the flaws of the powerful, to account for them, and to allow for change should future generations gain more wisdom on the subject.

You write like government is a thing to be weighed and parceled out instead of an activity people do.

These kind of events often follow a power law for how bad they get. It's notoriously (maybe impossible) to guess the magnitude of a power law event in advance. Also, my guess is they are not able to accurately account for adaptation in behavior of normal people in the disease zone. That's the sort of factor that will almost by definition be under-predicted.

Declaring bankruptcy is a time honored American tradition, and a good one.

Obama made nice squishy noises, but he never laid out many ideas that were that far to the left. Anyhow, you can always check the donors. If Sanders gets one tenth the money from Godlman Sachs that Obama got, I'll eat my hat.

By that logic, any human action is irrelevant since every socio economic problem was created by human action.

Today, sure, but tomorrow who knows, or dares to dream.

I'm imagining some stupid things like people giving a different address to each kb of RAM to reduce packet size.

IMHO there aren't many good engineers who aren't good scientists.

Bill Nye was a TV guy who got sucked into a science gig where he became famous. He apparently is under the delusion this makes him a top-notch scientist. I hope his role in the project was Fundraiser and not Chief Engineer.

How many long versions of "Freebird" is it?

My guess is your view of history is short timed and cherry picked.