Some human "authorities" and sources are more reliable than others, indeed. There are different standards so the argument is a false equivalence. It took a long time for the scientific method to develop, critical thinking and evidence based study of the world are not easy tasks, human brains have not necessarily adapted for the task of reality discovery. It has been a very successful knowledge development enterprise so far, leading to technologies that would appear like magic to ancient humans. Still, as history and religion shows, humans are still prone to their grandiose fantasies and likely always will.
As for "rejection of the Bible", I don't necessarily reject it, there are interesting texts. I understand that they're written by humans and compiled by other humans, with alterations, some forgeries, misattributed books even to mythological characters and that translations are also done with dogmatic bias.
I will denounce assholes who cherry pick from scripture to justify evil while pretending to speak for a deity, instead of swallowing their bigotry or accepting their unjustified persecution. I will point at their hypocrisy, showing that I can also quote mine conflicting scripture, like words attributed to Jesus. I have some respect for his general message. It's still pointless to consult ancient writings for scientific knowledge. Human ethics have continued to develop, just like some societies progressed with improvements to government structures. I object to appealing to false "divine" authorities to justify government policy, law, fascism and oppression.
But are you a curious person interested in knowledge? Humans even know how human traditions formed, not only about our actual origins.
There are excellent comments above mine. I'll just do minor nit-picking: a scientific theory is a model to collect the evidence, working hypotheses and make predictions, so that it's practical. For that reason "just a theory" arguments make no sense in terms of science, except when referring to hypotheses. A scientific hypothesis aims to be testable. It can be shown to work or not, if it becomes falsified it is no longer useful for discovery. Critical thinking is the default and a falsified hypothesis is a false premise to begin with. For the strong sciences, philosophers call it methodological naturalism, it works with the observable and the strongly inferred.
