This is the year 2017, so, if one appreciates
modern science and it modern tools then post some videos. The typed word is 19th century science technology. In the 21st century we have more tools to disseminate information.
The Bible is the typed word. Published science article use the typed word too--just like in mode of transportation George Washington rode on a horse and moved no faster than Julius Caesar who also rode on a horse as his mode of transportation. But the reason and purpose of published science papers is not that they are held up like the Bible or it's Genesis creation story, assumed true, and accepted on authority, but rather that a scientist or a science team can put to typed word their hypothesis, methodology, tools used, and their results and conclusions. So, that--and this is important--their peers in their field of science can do the exact same thing thy did and then see if they get the same results. The principle of
repeatability.
Other than anyone can type up anything in the written word. The Bible and its creation story of Adam and Eve is typed up.
The internet--which you and I are using--was said and still is said to revolutionize access to information for the average person. Sure, plenty of bad and false information can be had on the internet and its youetube videos too, but on the other hand the speed and access they give the Brazilian favela kid, the poor Ethiopian walking on a dirt road, or the middle-class American mom is phenomenal. When I did not understand certain things in homework for a science course given to me at my public university I used to go on youtube and listen to varying sources like Ivy League science professors
in class (lecture hall) explaining the issue I was having a problem with. And I live all the way in blue collar Milwaukee. Staggering.
In science labs you'll use computers the 21st century too. If for no other reason their computational power is so incredibly fast.
So, let me introduce you to the 21st century:
Documentary | BBC — Shroud of Turin
In the 21st century the dissemination of information does not only rely on typed words. We have videos that can be shot in HD 720p, 1080p, or 4k. The scientist or the mother of child killed by a cop can explain on video, engaging our ears and eyes, their position or what they saw. The scientist may even be able to show us what he saw like shutting off lights and taking a UV light source over a wall, floor, or cloth.
So, I prefer videos. I'm not in a science course or philosophy course where I'm required (and forced if I want to pass the course) to read through a mountain of papers in typed word.
If the tools used by scientist to examine the Shroud aren't worth a damn then they are not worth a damn at America's most prestigious science laboratories and universities. When an atheist only accept results--gathered by those tools--from scientist using the scientific method when it
confirms their bias, and then rejects them when they don't confirm their bias but contradicts them, that atheist is just like the Evangelical Protestant that rejects the Theory of Evolution. They both are religious.
So, as I said, whatever one believes very deeply
is a--their--religion. The better question is: is their belief
orthodox. And by orthodox I mean catholic with the small "c," I mean universal, true, right way of worshiping, right spiritual formation, attitude etc.
If being "orthodox" means--or also means--"universal" and "true" then you can apply that to the sciences or questioning or accepting
conclusions (or methods and tools) in a science paper.
