discuss some real science rather than a cloaked theological agenda." I completely agree with your conclusion! (Point 3 is debatable; just not here.) Many readers join you in objections against SciAm writers and editors who use it as a "bully pulpit" to attack religion. (I don't see any alternate opinions permitted by SciAm editors. When I offered evidence of this bias,the blog editor simply threatened to ban me from the site! How unscientific.) I hope that you add this comment to all of the pseudo-scientific shouting matches over religion. In particular, Michael Shermer and Lawrence Krauss flagrantly abuse SciAm to identify "science" with their own personal beliefs and those of the militant atheists. If the editorial staff doesn't change this behavior soon, readers will be calling this site SciAth, the "Scientific Atheist". As an atheist with a scientific world view I reject any explanatory mechanisms that are outside of the natural order (transcendant) unless one can demonstrate that it makes sense to extend the notion of causality beyond that which is currently understood. How causal processes operate within the natural world can be easily appreciated and understood. However, it does not appear reasonable to extend the concept of causality outside of the natural framework to involve entities as causative agents which have no logical connections to natural processes. I assure you I do not reject theism by faith, but because I maintain that there is no rational basis for theistic belief (and certainly no evidence to support it). One does