There's a certain appeal to only believing what you can observe directly ("Show me the money").
Perhaps scientists should start eating lead-based paint, giving themselves concussions, destroying fossils, breaking lab equipment, etc, so Perry would be more comfortable having to take scientific precepts as articles of faith? I don't get the appeal of that kind of approach to one's beliefs: it's as perverted as the rest of what Jesus passed off as ancient wisdom, but is now recognized as the thought-stopping power of logical fallacy of the paradox: goofiness that only seems wise, but on closer examination, is merely goofy. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, linguistic prestidigitaion.
I've asked for SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of what Jesus said that was: 1) ORIGINAL to him AND 2) gave mankind some example ofwisdom that was unknown at the time, and served as something that actually advanced human knowledge (rather than merely serving as flowery words and emotional puffery that made the audience feel good about their current situation, and appealed to their emotional needs for "more").
And once you cut out the flowery poetical waxing responses, there's nothing left but vapid hot gases: the challenge has elicited cricket chirps.