Majority of Americans are Skeptical about the Big Bang - But I'm Not. Here's Why.

A very slim majority of Americans are skeptical of the Big Bang. Fifty one percent, to be exact. But not me.

I grew up hearing that the Big bang theory was a threat to Christianity. You might think that this came from white-haired, sanctimonious ministers who shouted anti-science agendas from behind antique pulpits, but you'd be wrong. People who don't agree with my religious views are the ones who insist that science is the enemy of my faith. 

I had a classmate in grad school who insisted (loudly) that it is better to understand that the earth is really old than to believe in God. (Apparently, when you're a grad student you can just interrupt the conversation to denounce personal beliefs.) I asked him why an old earth model was incompatible with Christianity and he couldn't give me an answer, he just insisted that it was an affront to religion. I disagree.

Believe it, or not, I was attending a Baptist University when I learned to relax about the Big Bang. My physics professor explained the theory as well as someone could to a group of undergrads, and by the time he was done I realized that I had no reason to criticize it. Why on earth was the Big Bang theory considered a problem?

By all observations, the universe appears to be expanding, so it follows that all of it must have been smaller in the past. How much smaller? I don't know. No one does. But it's easy for me to imagine that the universe began with an explosion that forced space to grow in every direction. If God is all-powerful, then He is certainly allowed to create the universe this way. How about attributing the expanding universe to the God's grand design? Makes sense to me.

You know who else wouldn't be skeptical of the Big Bang? Monseigneur Georges Lemaître (d.1966), the first astronomer to theorize that the universe was expanding.

Did I mention that he was a priest? And that his work was approved by the pope?

There's no skepticism of the Big bang in my book. I wasn't around when the universe was created, so I don't know how it happened, but why argue with science?

A few things to remember. 200 Nigerian girls were kidnapped last week by a man who intends to sell them into slavery. The situation in Ukraine is growing more bloody and more hopeless by the day. 260,000 people in my city are living in poverty.

We've got our work cut out for us. Meanwhile, the Big Bang theory isn't hurting anyone.

Did Christians Once Teach that the Earth is Flat?

Did the church ever teach that the earth was flat? Some armchair historians think so. There are historians who have perpetuated these ideas, and it's something that is often taught in school. Is it true? Does the Bible teach that the world is flat? Not even close.

As a matter of fact, the idea of a flat Earth was never a common Christian teaching. Augustine spoke of a round and spherical Earth in his discussion of antipodes in the fifth century. Pope Sylvester II (who reigned in the year 1000) was an educated man who loved science he taught his students that the earth was round; in his spare time he could be found building spheres out of wood and then painting a map of the Earth on them.

A lot of ancient/medieval Christian scholars describe the earth being spherical, including Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard, and Bede. (They got this notion from people like Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, and Ptolyemy who taught the same thing.)  But the idea that Christians are "flat-earthers" persists.

Medieval paintings of the world show it to be round. And if you've ever wanted to read something really interesting from the middle ages you should read Hildegard's 'The Book of the Rewards of Life.' (Liber Vitae Meritorum) from the 12th century - it describes not only a spherical planet, but her idea of how the whole world works.

In the age of the Scholastics, in the latter half of the middle ages, the university as we know it was born, and the leaders of this movement, people like Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magmus, wrote the textbooks that shaped the intellectual world - and they always described the earth as a sphere.

Remarkably, almost every single important figure in antique/medieval Christianity described the earth as a sphere. The Greeks, who were able to estimate the shape - and even the measurements - of the earth, passed this knowledge to them, and the church never strayed from this ancient wisdom.

(Did anyone in older times deny that the earth was round? Yes. A few. About the same number of people currently think that the moon landing was faked.)

Where did we get the idea, then, that ancient people thought the earth was flat? It's hard to say where that rumor started, but those seeking to discredit the church have gladly latched onto this rumor. Unfortunately, it's a complete lie. Wikipedia has all of the relevant information here, but this quote from James Hannam says it all:

The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century...it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.

Science as a Dreamland

Scientists recently observed neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. Since nothing is supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, this would be a big deal. Charles Krauthammer says:

". . . . there must be some error. Because otherwise everything changes. We shall need a new physics. A new cosmology. New understandings of past and future, of cause and effect. Then shortly and surely, new theologies."

With all due respect to Krauthammer, who happens to be my favorite political commentator, this is not entirely correct. I think G. K. Chesterton's remark is more to the point:

". . . the world of science and evolution is far more nameless and elusive and like a dream than the world of poetry and religion; since in the latter images and ideas remain themselves eternally, while it is the whole idea of evolution that identities melt into each other as they do in a nightmare."

It is not usually religious orthodoxy that is threatened by scientific discovery, but scientific orthodoxy. Of course, I believe the things I have learned from science; I believe in electrons as strongly as the next man. I believe because I have been told.

Protons and electrons: an article of faith.

But the fact is that scientific discovery shapes relatively little of my worldview. Scientific discoveries can come and go and have little effect on the Christian whose worldview is shaped by Christ, Scripture, the teachings of the Church, and the sacred history of God's people from Abraham to Billy Graham.

The Resurrection: an article of faith.

I am talking about one of the differences between science and religion. Usually when we talk about the differences between science and religion we wander into the idea that science is about hard facts and religion about non-factual "values." That idea is incorrect, and it is not what I am talking about. It is a popular idea these days, but it misrepresents the factual claims made by many religions. Christianity, for one, is about quite a few facts. To take only one of the many statements of fact in the Bible, Christianity's crucial claim of the Resurrection is a statement of fact. As a matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln died and was buried and did not return living from the grave on the third day; as a matter of fact, Christianity says, Jesus died and was buried and did return living from the grave on the third day. If the resurrection is not a hard fact, then, as Paul says, Christianity is simply incorrect.

So I am not saying that science is about hard fact and religion about something else. Here is what I am saying. First, science investigates a region of reality that is subject to less constancy than the region of reality with which at least some religions, Christianity among them, is concerned. Second, the beliefs of science change far more frequently than the beliefs of religion, at least the beliefs of the very old religions like Christianity.

This doesn't mean that science is not to be taken seriously. It just means that scientific discovery makes up a relatively minor part of my worldview; those regions of my worldview which are shaped by science are generally the less important regions, not least because they are the regions which I view as more subject to change and in knowing which there is less certitude.

Evolution vs. Abiogenesis - Know the Difference!

Last year I attended a conference and listened to a student explain that evolution was heretical because non-living matter cannot turn into living matter.  I thought there was a problem with this approach, so I raised my hand when it was time for questions.

"Augustine said that God may have created the earth through a seminal method.  If he is correct, wouldn't that make evolution possible within orthodoxy?"  I asked.

"No," I was adamantly told, "because you can't get something like a rock and turn it into a living thing.  Evolution is impossible."

Obviously, I had worded my question poorly, so I tried again.  "But I'm not talking about getting life from non-life.  This sort of seminal creation means that God could have planted a seed that grew into the earth as we know it."

His reply: "Augustine was wrong."

His thesis had nothing to do with evolution (a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift).  Instead, he was arguing against the possibility of abiogensis (the theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter).  This is a problem, because these two are not the same thing.

 Oddly enough, there is a board game called Primordial Soup and the object of the game is to help your amoebas evolve into higher life forms.  It wasn't a hit at youth groups.

 

I should probably make a disclaimer here and say that I'm not interested in teaching you what to believe about evolution.  I'm not a biologist.  But I do want to be sure that in our enthusiasm to understand our world we do not forget to really know what we are talking about.  Arguing that evolution is impossible by denying abiogenesis is a logical fallacy, because evolution is not concerned with the origin of life.  Also, the notion of evolution does not imply that life came from non-life.  It's unfair to criticize biologists on those grounds.


I've heard plenty of people tell me that evolution can never help us understand where we came from, but I find this to be a strange argument.  The biologists I've spoken to are not looking into their microscopes in an effort to satisfy their existential longings - they are simply curious about science.  Their observations have led them to believe that life as we know it evolved from previous forms of life, but the origin of that "first life" is still a mystery to them.


So, if you want to debate or protest evolution, then I want to ask you to do it correctly.  Don't argue against the wrong thesis, because that just shows that you haven't done your homework. Of course, whining over evolutionary theory is the sort of thing that makes Christians a laughing stock on the internet, so maybe there are better uses of our time.

Baptizing Aliens - OK With Me

In an interesting announcement, Guy Consolmagno, the Pope's Astronomer, has said that he would be happy to baptize an alien.  He adds the stipulation that he would only do this if asked, because forced baptisms are a thing of the past (thank goodness).

Guy (seen left), is quite the progressive fellow in terms of science and faith, and I'm glad he's been public about this. It's been said in recent times by certain short-sighted individuals that it is "unChristian" to believe in the possibility of alien life, but that's not true. (I discussed this here, if you want to know more.)

I would like to see more people adopt his point of view. There's nothing in Scripture that denies alien life and there's no reason to arbitrarily decide that we must fight that notion. (Otherwise, if aliens landed we would all look pretty stupid.)  Sure, it's unlikely, but it's possible. And, it's even possible that these creatures could have souls and be favored by God. I know that's bizarre, but since it could happen we should be open to it.  TV shows like to assume that Christians would protest any ideas of aliens, but we need to shed that silly stereotype.

Of course, dunking aliens in water could backfire...

Does the Bible Support Homeopathy?

It might seem like a superfluous question, but some supporters of homeopathy have decided that there are Bible verses supporting this alternative style of medicine.  Since homeopathic medicine raises some serious and interesting claims, I've decided to look into it.

The practice of homeopathy was started by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796.  He came up with a notion that he should cure symptoms by administering drugs to his patients that would artificially give them the same symptoms as they already had.  And, for some reason, the dosage needed to be very, very, very small.  So, a patient with a headache might be treated with an herb that was known to give headaches after it had been strongly diluted in water.

Today, these medicines are still available to those willing to spend $90 on a bottle of nose spray.  The ingredients in these medicines have been heavily diluted in water and promise that there will be no side effects.  That is a pretty easy promise to keep, because the dilution level is so high that the mix is essentially just water (sometimes the dilution level is so high that it surpasses Avagaro's limit, which means that there's no chance of a single molecule of the original substance remaining).  There's a very good video discussing homeopathy here, if you want more information.

What could this possibly have to do with the Bible?  Dana Ullman, famous homeopathy spokesperson, has found a few Bible verses that he thinks prove homeopathy as a real science.  For example, in the book of Numbers the Israelites are able to ward off the effects of snakebite by looking at a snake.  Ullman sees in this an echo of homeopathy - disease/infection can be cured by similar things.  That's a pretty broad connection.  Elsewhere, Moses throws a bitter branch into bitter water and makes the water drinkable.  Again, Ullman believes this is evidence that God wants us to cure disease with similar things - thus proving (somehow) that if a substance causes similar symptoms as you disease, then heavily diluting that substance in water creates a cure.  (Note: these Bible passages discuss miracles the Israelites witnessed that had no scientific basis- hence the "miracle" part.  These were not medical workshops.)  The full list of his biblical "findings" is here.

The logic connecting homeopathy to the Bible is clearly faulty and so are the scientific claims - but the most ardent supporters of homeopathy do not appeal to science.  It's obvious that diluting something can't make it more potent or more useful (especially if it is diluted until only water is left), so the homeopathic community reaches out to magic and superstition.  They will say that magic powers (sometimes from Atlantis) are responsible for these cures and that science simply can't understand it.  Of course, if that were true we would be able to independently verify that these cures work through clinical trials; the homeopathic cures fail to work in every known scientific observation.

So, homeopathy is scientific nonsense, and since the peddlers of these "cures" are fraudulent we should be certain to keep it away from Christianity.

Are Parallel Universes Heretical?

I never watched The Golden Compass, except for this one trailer that really bugged me. After some introductory scenes, we cut to a university where some guy says, "I propose to discover a world, much like our own in a parallel universe," when a tightwad sitting next to him angrily retorts, "THAT is HERESY!" (If I had written this film, the next line would involve the first guy kicking him into a black hole and standing over it yelling, "THIS IS SCIENCE!")

Here's the trailer, the part I mentioned starts at :50.



Why would a parallel universe be heresy? If such a thing existed I would be the first person in line to check it out, and I would laugh at anyone who thought something ungodly was going on.

First things first, however, I've never bought into the idea of parallel universes, or multiversal cosmology. There's no evidence for it and not much fervor for it in the scientific community. (Not to mention, it normally makes for bad sci-fi - LOST being a notable exception to this.) It's fun to talk about, but I don't think the idea holds much water.

But, what if it were true? What if there are multiple realities where things are different from our own? One well circulated theory suggests that this could create a situation in which God is not necessary in the creation of the world. While this theory uses multiversal cosmology to deconstruct the Christian view of creation, it does not mean that the existence of parallel universes would somehow disprove God's existence.

Pictured: Scientists who opened a door to another dimension.

Assuming such a multiverse is even possible, it's not a problem for a theologian. God's omnipotence is not threatened by time paradoxes any more than than it is threatened by a person moving across time zones; He is still God no matter how His universe is structured, and if He is seeing over a multitude of different realities than it just shows us how grand He really is. The fictional concept of opening up a door to another universe should be as heretical as opening up a door to a big front yard.

But what really bugs me is that movie trailer. Have Christians been so anti-science that people will believe that we would stand up and fight against such harmless cosmological theorizing? I guess so, and that upsets me, too.

UPDATE: Jared made a good point in the comment section, below.  Since C.S. Lewis' classic Narnia tales take place in a parallel universe, it doesn't make sense to say that Christians would find the idea heretical.

Update II (This time, it's not update I):  Just for the record, when I wrote this I put parallel universes and multiversal cosmology together in my assertion.  Obviously, these are not the same thing, but I put them together because the same arguments work for both.

What is the Vatican Doing About Aliens? Surprisingly, a Lot.

While visiting Rome, the wife and I stumbled onto an interesting church that was dedicated to the works of Galileo. I know, I know, everyone says that me and my Southern Baptist buddies declared him a heretic and ostracized him years ago, and that we are still looking for scientists to maim in our never ending bloodlust for thinkers; but there's more to Galileo's story, and, today, the Vatican is looking heavenward on its own.

Sometime after Galileo died, the church realized that attacking a poor astronomer (who had strong Christian convictions) was probably their worst idea since they asked Thomas Aquinas to write a little book about what he believed. Today, near the train station in Rome, you can see this large church that tells the legacy of Galileo and even shows a film of the moon landing. In this video, one of the astronauts mentions Galileo's predictions about gravity on the moon and carries out the experiment that Galileo had always dreamed of. Check it out:



Today, something new and different is going on in Rome. Since life on other planets is a possibility, the Vatican does not want to be caught off guard. It's important to consider the theological ramifications of extra-terrestrials and to consider what the church's role should be if an encounter with alien life took place.

"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory...

...in the interview last year, Funes told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that believing the universe may host aliens, even intelligent ones, does not contradict a faith in God.

"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said in that interview.

"Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God. This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom."

Funes maintained that if intelligent beings were discovered, they would also be considered "part of creation." (Link)

I agree - nothing about aliens challenges my faith.

However, the writers over at AnswersInGenesis.com do not agree - they maintain that only the Earth can hold intelligent life and that no aliens can exist, and they insist that this can be determined by reading the book of Genesis. That's a remarkable claim - not a single Biblical scholar in history seems to have come to this conclusion, so the folks at Answers in Genesis must be pretty confident in their ability to interpret scripture. (I linked to that article and wrote my opinions about it here.)

At my old job, some co-workers said that if aliens were discovered it would nullify the Christian faith - I wanted to bang my head against the wall. When did Christians get this "anti-E.T." reputation? Let's choose our battles more wisely. Also, I'm going to join the Vatican in watching the skies.

Take This Quick Science Quiz - I Dare You

This 12 question test from the Pew Research Center is fun because it compares your answers to those of others. The statistics are broken down by age and levels of education so you can compare your scientific-savy to that of a senior citizen or a high school dropout. (Or both.)

I only missed one (I won't say which one because I was sort of embarrassed) but I was horrified at the number of people who missed some very easy questions. To think that discussions of the energy crisis involve people who don't know if an atom is bigger than an electron...it made me sad.

"Don't disappoint me. By the way, I never failed math."

Anyway, I dare you to take the test. If you are brave enough tell me one you missed I will tell you which one I missed. Even though I don't want to. (I'm not asking you to post your score, just one that you missed.)

Organic Food Liars

This was just published, today.

LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

I've been told that God wants me to eat natural food because it is better for my body. The Bible certainly does ask us to treat our bodies well - but it also asks us to use our brains.

Organic vegetables are no different than ugly normal vegetables on a chemical level - nutrients are not more plentiful in the organic variety. Why? Because it isn't possible to take a healthy vegetable and make it less healthy. Sure, you can add something (like pesticide) to the food, but you can't take away the health benefits by doing so. If the non-organic food contains nothing harmful then there is no health benefit to eating organic.

The debate about the dangers of pesticides still rages on. I don't think there is any evidence that they are harmful but it is not immediately relevant to this part of the discussion. What we are discussing is the fact that the actual food itself is not any more nutritious.

(Obviously, if you prefer the flavor or have some other reason for eating organic food this doesn't apply to you.)

For more information on organic foods that you might not have heard (for example, these crops are grown mostly by business tycoons rather than local farmers and the cultivation of organic foods is more harmful to the environment then standard food) check out Brian Dunning's article here.

Please don't misunderstand me: I do not look down on people who eat organic food. However, the organic food industry has been lying to us and I think it's time for these lies to stop.

I'm Jealous of the Monkeys

I'm not making this up - a monkey has been trained to control a robot with his mind.

A laboratory in Pittsburg has planted a microchip in the monkey's brain which lets him control a robotic arm with his thoughts; he has learned to pick things up and turn handles.

Look at the scowl on his face. We haven't just given awesome robot wielding power to a monkey - we gave this power to an evil monkey! (Also, I'm pretty sure that monkey can talk in a British accent and has command over legions of henchmen.)

But, that's not all. I recently discovered that this little fellow isn't the only robot controlling monkey in the world. A monkey named Idoya has been trained to control a robot halfway around the world with its thoughts. When Idoya, who resides in the U.S., thinks about walking a robot in Japan walks around. Idoya has been so well trained that she can simply watch the robot on a screen and make it do as she wishes without any help from her trainers.

These experiments have interesting potential for helping the paralyzed to walk by fitting them with robotic implants. Very cool. Until then, the monkeys get to have all of the fun. Let's see, that's two monkeys, today, who can control powerful robots and I can't control my can opener. Can I have a chip in my head? When do I get to use my mind powers to force robots to do my bidding? That's almost as cool as having grad students follow me around. (Hmm, I might be the first Christian to ask someone to put a chip in their head. What kind of a website is this?)

"Ooh, I've got an idea, let's fit the human with a microchip and see if he can control robots!"

And, in one more piece of monkey-related news, monkeys have even been trained to recognize bad grammar - which means that, even if I can't have mind-control over a robot, I can at least have a pet monkey to proof read my blog. And, if you ever told someone that their YouTube comment could have been written better by a chimp - you were right.

The world's most frightening grammar nazi. You're looking at the end of dangling participles as you know them.

Neanderthal - How Not the be One

Read this. It's the top ten misconceptions about neanderthals.

Why am I asking you to read this? Because most people don't know anything about them. Also, Christians often find themselves in conversations about evolution that include subjects like this.

Someday, when talking about evolution, you might be tempted to say something like, "people were created by God, they didn't evolve from Neanderthals!" But that's only because you didn't read item #9 on the list:

Recent DNA studies have found that the Neanderthals
are a distinct evolutionary line – a line which was ultimately
a dead end as they all died out around 30,000 years ago...

I'm not asking you to buy into every theory regarding Neanderthals and you are perfectly welcome to decide that they never existed - there's nothing wrong with that. The theories could change in ten years for all I know.

But, knowing what is generally believed to be true about these strange hominids will keep you from looking like a fool when the discussion arises. Those who wish to reconcile their faith with the findings of science will also benefit from this because otherwise they would be trying to reconcile their misconceptions - a strategy that can only fail.

Does God Want You to Stop Eating HFCS?

Hardly a month goes by that I am not told to avoid certain foods or vitamins or supplements because God doesn't want me to eat them.

I have been told that God doesn't want me to eat until my stomach growls. I have been told to avoid foods that cost $6.66 at the store. Some say medicine is entirely ungodly and any form of pharmacy must be avoided if I am to live as a Christian.

This isn't in the Bible - it simply isn't there. The rhetoric used by these people almost always follows the same pattern: "God didn't intend for you to eat ________ - he wants you to eat _____"

Really? I've read the Bible and never run into that one. It doesn't come up in the works of the church fathers or the Christian mystics, either.

The latest is HFCS (high fructose corn syrup). The best article I have read about this subject came from Brian Dunning at Skeptoid.com. I don't always agree with him but he is very intelligent and, in particular, his knowledge of chemistry is very strong.

Regular table sugar is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, which means that the two monosaccharides are chemically bound into a larger, more complex disaccharide molecule called sucrose. That's sugar. HFCS consists of the same two monosaccharides, only they're just mixed in together, the molecules are not bound...
...When you consume regular sugar, sucrose, the first thing your digestive system does is break the chemical bond and separate it into glucose and fructose. So once saccharides are in your body, it makes very little difference whether they came in as table sugar or as HFCS.

You've probably heard that you will not feel "full" after eating something with HFCS - but you will not find a scientific study that verifies this. Look. I dare you. This effect is caused by fructose which is in table sugar in the same amounts. HFCS and normal sugar contain the same ingredients.

"OK, the eleventh commandment says 'Thou shalt not eat HFCS' wait, does anyone know what that is? No? Ok, we'll just put that one aside for now."

If you want to lose weight it doesn't require mysticism - simply count calories and exercise, just don't blame it on the Devil or some conspiracy theory. There is nothing sinful about eating corn syrup.

Of course, HFCS is still sugar so it causes any problems you would normally associate with sugar; cutting sugar out of your diet might be a good thing for your health (consult your doctor) but that does not mean that drinking soda is living in sin.

(And if you've heard about mercury being found in HFCS, read be sure to check this out.)

When Will the Scientists Get Back to Work?

I love science. I used to read a few science magazines each week and read the latest science/technology news online. (If you're skeptical that a Christian can love science, read this blog entry about me and the Darwinist.)

But I don't follow this stuff much, anymore. My interest is the same but the output from these "science" publications has changed - from discussing science to hating religion.

This morning I wanted to check out the latest in the field of science and headed over to ScienceBlogs.com...and had trouble finding an article about lab work or physical observations of any kind. Not even a word about string theory. Just hate talk.

This article childishly insults the entire state of Texas because of one religious zealot who wants to stop saying "hello". It discusses Michelle Obama, but not science.

This one makes fun of people who love God. (Exactly what scientists ought to be doing.)

Here, we are told that a right-wing extremist was the killer at the Holocaust Museum - even though it was a Bush hating journalism major who disliked Christians.

"I know, you were all hoping we would announce a cure for the plague - but we've just been too busy protesting Vatican I. Maybe next time!"

It was the same when I stopped reading science magazines. Lengthy stories would discuss social issues and preferred politicians but never actually anything new about outer space or biology (except in small articles of one or two paragraphs). I realize that militant Creationists have added to this problem by being rude to the world of science and that sort of thing does need to stop. But, for the sake of intellectual and social advancement I would like to see the scientists putting down the protest signs and picking up their beakers. (Simultaneously, I would like to see Creationist bloggers put down their hate speech and show love to their fellow man.)