"All religions have passed through human minds and human hands, and are therefore likely to abound with human errors; so that the man who believes in the infallibility of a book is but one step removed from the superstition of him who believes in the infallibility of a high-priest; he merely removes the idea of verbal inspiration from the broad daylight of the present, where its improbability would be too obvious, into the dim obscurity of the past, where difficulties become lost in the misty shadows of antiquity. Whatever is true in religion will bear the fullest investigation and most searching criticism; it is only error that fears discussion." - Essays on The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis, by Martin Haug, Late Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology at the University of Munich, 1878
It is a good thing that modern science doesn't pass through "human minds and human hands"!
I believe that God has a sense of humor, and part of that is that he will condemn those who mock Him to believe their mocking. That is, when contrary data comes in that is blindingly obvious and threatens them with extermination, they will still be unable to change course.
In this book professor Haug notes that the scriptures of the Avesta were in Old Persian, which was a dead language. A very poor translation was made from Old Persian to Middle Persian, and then additional mediocre translations were made from Middle Persian to other modern languages, with the net result that the modern priests of the Zoroastrian religion were completely unable to comprehend their own scriptures. Even today the Old Persian has not been very well decoded, so that text books on the language must presuppose a knowledge of the vaguely similar Sanskrit language and then rather than providing definitions for words, they provide potential cognates in Sanskrit, Middle Persian and Armenian, leaving it to the student to work out what makes the most sense. The Doctrine of Errancy would thus be quite accurate regarding Zoroastrianism, yet completely in error for Christianity and Mohammedanism.
My reading between the lines indicates that Prof. Haug's attack is directed at Protestant Christianity. But as I have pointed out, those who mock will cursed to believe their mockery, which is obscurely indicated in Isaiah 28, and many other places. For example, the mock charity called the welfare state, which pays deadbeats, drug addicts and drunks along with the truly needy and does this through theft, this is now the vehicle for the army invading Europe. But now they believe this insanity to be a moral necessity, and have completely lost view that the welfare state was merely intended to mock true Judaeo-Christian charity. Then there will be the Saracen swinging a sword to remove the head of the enlightened intellectual, who will be completely unable to comprehend that there was nothing at all either "dim" or "obscure" regarding the behavior of their founder. In the US, we have an enraged feral underclass having been raised with no experience of the human family, due to governmental policies, which were likewise driven by intellectuals mocking the family.
Which is all to say that God is truly in charge, and the mocking of men will not cause Him to fail in His purpose.
"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, not sits in the seat of scoffers" - Psalm 1:1