You think it's just as irrational (as ascribing supernatural causes) to build a scientific theory? Who is denying humans are complex? Who is trying to explain everything with one central premise? The truth or otherwise of the "story" is a matter of debate. You seem to be wedded to the idea that the story is definitely untrue.
I don't see any scientific theory here. How exactly would we go about testing the relationship between risks in the ancestral environment and not being "wired properly [to] consider long-term risk"?
I'm not sure, but presumably all branches of science that deal with conditions in pre-history have testability challenges. Doesn't mean you can't build theories, reason about them, devise ingenious and indirect ways to test and experiment. Humour me. I assume you don't dispute that modern civilization has been conincident with only a tiny fraction of human evolutionary history. Why isn't it reasonable to assume we are well adapted to pre-civilization environments and that sometimes this is not helpful in modern life?
It's exactly my whole point that it is unreasonable for me to do so. ThrustVectoring was trying to appropriate the good will and prestige that science has built up without doing the hard work that's necessary for his argument to actually deserve that good will and prestige. It's a kind of free riding.
I think that's an extraordinary stretch - but okay, if that's your point that's your point.
Edit (added): Sorry that's probably a little uncharitable of me. We've rather been talking past each other. From my perspective I've felt I wanted to discuss the science and you've been saying no, we can't discuss it, it's not science. But that's just my perspective.
