Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?And:
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.Now, who is more humble? The science that not only bases itself on reality, but also allows for change, and understands that science doesn't actually know everything. Whereas the theitard KNOWS all the answers based on bronze age fables that are immutable over thousands of years, despite contradicting evidence... Oh yes, how "arrogant" of scientists to listen to reality instead of mythological blind assertions. How "arrogant" of scientists to dare to contradict the wibble contained in Bronze Age mythology, because their experiments tell them that said wibble is a crock of shit. How "arrogant" of scientists to provide real, substantive knowledge that has done more for humanity in 300 years than supernaturalism has done in 5,000.
When your mythology can provide something even remotely akin to the elimination of smallpox, manned spaceflight, successful life saving organ transplants, teraflop supercomputing and elucidation of the secrets of organismal genomes, we'll take notice. Until then, we'll sit by and notice how science has provided all of the above, and that mythology is an intellectual eunuch by comparison.