So, I as a limited creature, can believe what scientists say about gravity, because I can calibrate what they say to my own experience.
But, scientists, being less limited creatures, can perceive something called evolution, which operates at a physical level, still, but over a time scale that is not readily experienced by us, the more limited creatures.
And you think you folks are not percieved as 'priests'?
So, I as a limited creature, can believe what scientists say about gravity, because I can calibrate what they say to my own experience.
More or less, although he didn't say anything about "limited creatures", you added that yourself.
But, scientists, being less limited creatures, can perceive something called evolution, which operates at a physical level, still, but over a time scale that is not readily experienced by us, the more limited creatures.
Horse manure, and not at all what he said. If that's really what you got from his reply, you need more tinfoil on your hat, because you're receiving thoughts from outer space or something.
All he's saying is that the "slow-motion" action of evolution is not obvious in daily life (just as the slow movement of continents and the slow rise of mountains due to plate tectonics is not obvious during a human lifespan either).
The only reason that scientists "can perceive something called evolution" (or plate tectonics, for that matter) is because they make the effort to do the tests and conduct the fieldwork and examine the evidence (DNA sequences, etc.) where evolution leaves its trails and shows its activity.
You can do the same things, if you bother to do so. You don't even need to run the experiments, etc. yourself - you can examine the records of those who have. But you don't want to see, do you? You're afraid that like millions of others, you'll check out the evidence and work through the material and say, "oh, so it *does* make sense after all..."
And you think you folks are not percieved as 'priests'?
*You're* the one who introduced some sort of bizarre "limited and less limited" dichotomy between scientists and laymen -- he didn't. Don't accuse *him* of "elevating" scientists to some sort of "priesthood", when *you're* the only one who introduced such a "higher/lower" view into the discussion.