You do have to be allowed to recognize what you're seeing when you see it. The last century has greatly multiplied our knowledge. In 1902, we were just probing radioactivity and figuring out that we might be able to explore the nature of the atom. We were still puzzled by the difference between a galaxy and a nebulla. The best light microscopes were as good as it got for seeing small objects. We had just lately proven that microorganims cause many diseases, but had only thought of a couple of things to do about it. (Immunization and sterile surgical procedure.)
By 1902, we had formulated the idea of a gene, realized that they must be hiding somewhere in cell structures called chromosomes, and that was approximately that. We thought the Cambrian sediments were the beginnings of all life. We had no evidence for the origins of man or whales, and only one intriguing fossil for bird origins. We didn't realize that continents drift.
We didn't know how to fly. Hollerith had just lately done the US census with electrical counting machines and punched cards. The latest miracle was the automobile. Gas lights were the rage, but electricity was threatening to displace them.
It took all of the history of mankind minus 100 years to get through 1902. But our knowledge has multiplied several-fold since then. It's an exponential curve, not linear. (At least, it's behaving as such for now.)
Imagine what might be learned in the next century!!
I'm intrigued by SETI.' It could provide significant explanations that we're overlooking; specifically, the "seeding" and "nurturing" of life on earth by ETI would explain the gap between ID's numbers that say there's not enough time for such complexity to have evolved and astronomy's insistence that the earth is only about 5 billion years old. I think ETI is a better solution than Gould's "punctuated equilibrim."