Is Science Essential to Humanity

In this round, I will attempt to address each point you made in Round 2 one at a time. "Without science, we probably don't survive out of the Ice Age. How else would we learn to adapt to our changing world?" You defined science as "the study of the natural world". I argue that humans survived the Ice Age because of evolutionary instincts rather than scientific study. I don't think that early humans were studying anything, they were just doing what was necessary to survive. Do you have any evidence to suggest that humans in the Ice Age were scientists? "I disagree that science and knowledge isn't required to be human. If we don't have knowledge, what makes us different from chimpanzees? We can argue the definition of humanity more in depth later if you like, but I think exploration and learning is part of our species' nature and what got us here, to being the dominant species on the planet, in the solar system even." Humans are different from Chimpanzees because of DNA, not because of what humans do with their time. Maybe humans wouldn't be the dominant species without science, but they would still be human. "Like what? Being nomadic hunter-gatherers who don't even have basic weapons to hunt with? Who live in caves because they don't know how to build a structure? Everything we do today is based on scientific innovations from people before us." This debate is not discussing what humans would be without science, but merely if humans could exist without science. Please don't think of me as being anti-science. I like science, and I'm not saying for a moment that humans would be better off without it. I am just arguing that science is not absolutely essential to humanity as a whole. "They barely survive. What happens when a plague strikes, or a pack of deadly predators move in, or when the Earth gets hotter/colder? How can they survive if they don't even understand what's happening? Many of these societies have at least a basic understanding of science, they can make fire, build shelters, etc." Evolution has gave humans basic survival instincts that they can use to survive. If a plague strikes, some people are naturally immune. If deadly predators move in, humans fight or flee. If the Earth gets hotter/colder, humans migrate. These decisions aren't because humans of studied the situation and decided what to do using the scientific method, but simply because human instincts tell them to do certain things. When primitive societies use fire, they do it without understanding the scientific how's and whys behind it. They build shelters without knowing the physics explanation. I argue that making use of the natural world is not science. If a human walks, they don't need to know which muscles they are moving. They just walk. "Science is the foundation of what it means to be human." That is your opinion on what it means to be human. Someone else might think that walking upright or having opposable thumbs is the foundation of what it means to be human. Science isn't the only thing unique to the human species. Do you have evidence to suggest that science is the foundation of what it means to be human? Thank you for what so far is a challenging and fascinating debate, and I await the last round.