QUARK SOUP

Do you like riddles? Try this one:

Once, more than 13 billion years ago, I filled the entire universe…but I lasted less than a second. Since then, I never existed again…until 2010. What am I?

How about this one:

I am 100,000 times hotter than the center of the Sun but I haven’t boiled yet; I’m still a liquid. What am I?

Or this one:

I am heavier (denser) than anything in the universe except a black hole but I flow 20 times more smoothly and easily than water. What am I?

Hint: the answer to all three riddles is the same.

Give up? It’s Quark Soup!

What’s Quark Soup?

All of the objects in our world are made up of atoms. Each atom is made up of a nucleus and a bunch of electrons (ok, at least one electron) surrounding that nucleus.

The nucleus of an atom is made up of protons and neutrons and protons and neutrons are made up of quarks: 3 quarks for every proton and 3 quarks for every neutron.

Quarks stick together. They are held together by a very strong kind of superglue called a “gluon” (glue-on, get it?). But gluons work differently from any glue you’ve ever used. When the quarks are just hanging out peacefully inside a proton or neutron, the gluons don’t do much. But if one quark tries to break loose from the others, the gluons swing into action. They tug tightly on that quark so it can’t escape. The more the quark tries to pull away, the tighter the gluon tugs on it.

Gluons are so strong that there is no way for a quark to escape from the proton or neutron that’s trapped it…unless you heat it up to 4 trillion degrees (that’s 4,000,000,000,000 ̊C).

Only at that temperature (sometimes written 4 x 10¹², meaning 4 with 12 zeroes after it) can the quarks break the gluons’ grip. Then the quarks and the gluons just hang out together in a kind of soup, Quark Soup!

But there’s just one problem: where can you go to find such a high temperature? How about the center of the Sun? Nope, that’s only 40,000,000 ̊C – a frozen popsicle compared to the temperature we need. Turns out, there’s no place in the universe today with a temperature nearly hot enough to make Quark Soup.

So that’s the end of that, right? Not so fast! I said, “There’s no place in the universe today hot enough for Quark Soup.” But there was once. All you need to do to make Quark Soup is to travel back in time…ok, way back in time…all the way back to the very first second in the life of the universe. And then you’d still have to go back even further, back to just a fraction of a second after the universe began.

But the point is, you can do it! Unless, of course, you don’t own a time machine and can’t find a friend to lend you one. In that case, you would need to create the 4,000,000,000,000 ̊C temperature all by yourself.

Fortunately, it’s not all that hard…at least not on paper. All you need are the nuclei from 2 gold atoms, a long circular tube and some very, very strong magnets. Put the nuclei in the tube and use the magnets to make the nuclei move very quickly through the tube. When you get them going at a speed almost equal to the speed of light, just make them crash head-on into one another, and bang, you’ve got the temperature you need for Quark Soup: 4,000,000,000,000 ̊C.

At that moment, the quarks will break loose from the gluons, destroying the protons and neutrons that held them captive for so many billions of years. You’ll be a modern day Aladdin, freeing the quark genies from their proton and neutron lamps.

Turns out, in 2010, scientists did just that. They set quarks free and made Quark Soup for the first time in more than 13 billion years; and they did it right on Long Island, NY at a place called Brookhaven. They built something called a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC for short). Its circular tube is two miles long and it uses 1740 powerful magnets. That’s what it takes to get the gold nuclei moving at speeds close to the speed of light. But they did it!

So what’s this soup like, anyway? Well, for one thing, it’s hot, very very hot. 4 x 10¹² ̊C hot. But even at that temperature, Quark Soup doesn’t boil. It’s still a liquid, not a gas.

It’s a liquid, but boy does it pour. It pours at least 20 times more easily than ordinary tap water. I guess you could say that Quark Soup is super-slippery.

For another thing, it’s small. Two gold nuclei produce a very, very tiny drop of soup. Think of a box where each edge is about an inch long. Now split that box up into 10 smaller boxes. Then split one of those smaller boxes into 10 even smaller boxes and keep doing this until you’ve done it a total of 12 times. The box you’re left with is about the size of a single drop of Quark Soup.

But this tiny, tiny drop of Quark Soup weighs about 1,000 pounds…heavier (actually, the correct scientific term is “denser”) than anything else in the universe…except a black hole. If you had a drop of Quark Soup the size of a marble, it would weigh about 100 trillion pounds. That’s 100,000,000,000,000 pounds, sometimes written 10¹⁴, 1 with 14 zeroes after it.

So Quark Soup is the hottest, slipperiest, heaviest (except for black holes) thing in the universe. But what does it taste like? Who knows! A single sip would vaporize your body. So there’s no way to know what Quark Soup tastes like, unless of course you ask Bobby Flay.

I AM

The Judeo-Christian tradition includes upwards of 80 books of scripture (depending on whose cannon you’re following), but I think a strong case can be made that the core theological insight, the insight that turned the intellectual history of the Western World upside down…and still does so today…can be found in just 16 verses, the first 16 verses of the third book of Exodus.

No where else does the Bible tell us so clearly and succinctly who God is…and by extension, who we are. These 16 verses constitute a fully formed and thoroughly radical theology which by implication leads to a fully formed and equally radical ontology.

It begins with Moses “tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian…There an angel (manifestation) of the Lord appeared to him as fire flaming out of a bush…although the bush was on fire, it was not being consumed…’I must turn aside to look at this remarkable site. Why does the bush not burn up?’ When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called out to him from the bush: ‘Moses! Moses!’ ‘Here I am’, he answered. ’”

God then commissions Moses to go to Pharaoh to secure the release of the Israelites from their captivity in Egypt. “But Moses said to God, ‘Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?’ God answered: ‘I will be with you; and this will be your sign that I have sent you.’”

Moses then asks God his name. “God replied to Moses, ‘I am who am’. Then he added: ‘This is what you will tell the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.’ God spoke further to Moses: ‘This is what you will say to the Israelites: The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, this is my title for all generations.’”

In these 16 verses, God’s nature is revealed to Moses 4 times in 4 very different ways. Begin with God’s self-manifestation to Moses as “fire flaming out of a bush…not being consumed.” Moses turns “aside to look at this remarkable site”. Why? Because everything Moses, or any of us, has ever encountered conforms to the principle of entropy; the burning bush does not.

Of course, Moses did not know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but according to that law, all process leads to an increase in disorder. Here we would expect the process of fire to transform the relatively ordered bush into a relatively disordered pile of ashes; but it does not happen! That’s what catches Moses’ attention, and at the same time, that’s what reveals God’s nature.

Other early thinkers, Parmenides for example, were puzzled by the ‘perpetual perishing’ that seems to be associated with time. However, they tended to rely on a ‘changeless realm’ to solve the problem (e.g. Parmenides’ Aletheia).  The brilliance of Exodus is that it avoids entropy without eliminating process. The fire burns; process occurs. But there is no increase in disorder. Exodus liberates process from entropy…and time.

The burning bush is a manifestation of God. It shows us that God is processional as well as eternal. This first revelation of God’s nature takes place via the modality of direct (visual) experience and reveals God in his function as the Kingdom of Heaven (eternal present).

Next, Moses asks God for his name. At first God seems a bit miffed at Moses; he replies, “I am who am”.

In ancient cultures, names meant a great deal more than they do today (“What’s in a name?”). Names conveyed role and function as well as identity. The modern idea that who you are is separate from what you are and what you do was not current in Moses’ time. So Moses’ question at first appears to challenge God’s identity.

But God also sees that this was not Moses’ intent. He is merely concerned with the practical problem of explaining all this to his neighbors. So God goes on, “Tell the Israelites I AM has sent me to you.” In giving Moses this name, he is not just telling Moses what to call him; he is revealing who he is and what he does.

AM is God’s nature and his function. Wherever there is an ‘am’, that ‘am’ is a participation in the nature of God. God is what makes ‘am’ possible; he is what ‘am’ is. For that reason, it is not possible to predicate anything of God. God has no predicates but he is the substructure of all predicates. (Note: ‘Good’ is not a predicate when applied to God; it is synonymous with ‘Being’.) He is pure being, pure AM…and that is Good.

God reveals his nature to Moses this second time through the modality of language (aka reason) and reveals his function as Creator.

Then, “God spoke further to Moses: ‘This is what you will say to the Israelites: The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, this is my title for all generations.’”

So God has two names, “I am” and “The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. The former links God with the eternal present but the later appears to link God with history (time). Houston, do we have a problem?

Not if we pay attention to what the text says:  “I am the God of your father…the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Am not was!

“I am…the God of Abraham…” I am the God of Abraham now and “forever…for all generations”. But if God is the God of Abraham now, then Abraham too must be now…and Isaac and Jacob and Moses’ father and everyone else as well. Exodus not only projects God into history but history into God.

In the New Testament Gospel of Matthew, Jesus offers a gloss on Exodus 3: “And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Mt. 22: 31-32)

Following the resurrection of Jesus, the apostle Peter is quoted as using this same formula in a new context: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has glorified his servant Jesus…God raised him from the dead; of this we are witnesses.” (Acts 3: 13a, 15b)

God is the eternal presence that underlies everything that is; whatever says “I am” says it eternally. So God’s nature is revealed to Moses a third time, this time through the modality of history (time), and it reveals God in his function as Savior/Redeemer.

There is yet a 4th revelation of God’s nature to Moses, this time through the modality of relationship (aka dialog, love). This may be the most challenging revelation for us to grasp.

First, note the importance of reciprocity between God and Moses:

o   God (angel) manifests himself to Moses. He is not an endlessly burning bush that Moses just happens to accidentally encounter. “The Lord appeared to him as fire flaming from a bush.”

o   “I must turn aside to look at this remarkable site.” Moses does not ignore God; he engages with God.

o   “When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, he called out to him,” and Moses answers. God and Moses enter into dialogue.

o   Moses queries God about his mission and about God’s identity and God answers him, “I will be with you; and this will be the sign that I have sent you.”

Now this last line is pivotal, but controversial. What exactly is the “sign”? Some think it is the fact that the Israelites will one day worship God on the very same spot, a retroactive sign. Some think it refers to the burning bush itself. But I think the sign is in fact God’s on-going relationship with Moses, a relationship that will be incredibly important to Moses throughout the trials that are to come. That relationship and the power and charisma it gives to Moses are the sign that Moses is sent by God.

Moses’ relationship with God is not the passive, one dimensional relationship of creature and creator. This is a living, breathing relationship that  allows Moses to ‘be all that he can be’. Moses’ success testifies to his relationship with God and that is the sign.

Our language is a language of nouns, subject and object, and verbs, active and passive. Within the confines of our linguistic habits, we struggle to understand how God’s identity could be relationship itself. We speak of subjects (nouns) and predicates (verbs); in general we assume that the subject (and perhaps the object as well) precede the predicate. For example:

Peter hit Paul; Paul was hit by Peter. Peter and Paul are the ‘necessary’ subjects, hitting is something that more or less ‘accidentally’ takes place between them. The assumption is that Peter would be Peter and Paul would be Paul regardless of whether anyone hit anyone else.

But not all languages make such an assumption. Some American Indian languages (Hopi, for example) make the verb the necessary subject of the sentence and nouns the accidental predicates. It is the hitting itself that makes Peter Peter and Paul Paul. The relationship between Peter and Paul is what defines (dare I say “creates”?) Peter and Paul.

Ancient languages often included a ‘middle voice’ which is the voice of relation. In the middle voice, it is the relationship that is primary; the things that are related (the ‘relata’) are secondary.

The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Anaximander (c. 500 BCE), built an entire ontology on this concept. For him, being only arises when two proto-beings “give each other reck”, in other words, let each other develop without interference or judgment. Relation precedes relata. The granting of ‘reck’ constitutes auto-genesis, but it can only take place mutually and in the context of a relationship. Anaximander offers us an early version of ‘bootstrapping’.

Relationship is also primary in the ontology of Jesus’ apostle John. The Gospel of John begins, “In the beginning (or at the foundation) was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…all things came to be through him.”

John’s prologue is undoubtedly intended to remind the reader of the opening words of Genesis, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…God said: Let there be light, and there was light.”

The author of Genesis is drawing on God’s nature as reveled to Moses in the burning bush while John seems to be drawing on God’s nature as revealed to Moses through relationship.

John is also laying the groundwork for the Christian doctrine of Trinity which emphasizes God’s nature as relationship or love. First, the Trinity is the relationship among its three persons. Second, one of those persons, the Holy Spirit, is relationship per se.

The foundational document of Christian doctrine, the Nicene Creed, specifically points out that God’s nature as Relationship (Spirit) is just as important and fundamental as his nature as Creator (Father) and his nature as Incarnation (Son): “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son and together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.”

So in just 16 verses, God reveals a fourfold nature to Moses using 4 different modalities: once through direct visual experience, once through language (reason), once through history (memory), and once through relationship (love).

But God can have only one nature! So somehow all four of these revealed natures must point toward a single nature. This insight allows us to extrapolate the theology of Exodus 3 into a complete ontology: Being, Presence, Redemption and Love are denotatively synonymous, if connotatively different. They reveal to us four aspects on a single, simple nature, the divine nature.

God is Being and as such necessarily underlies everything that is. He is the presence of everything that ever is and that presence is eternal. But God is not a passive ontological category; God is process, relationship. love. God is in an ongoing, dialectical relationship with everything that is, a relationship that allows entities to evolve, perfect themselves and harmonize. This is the world we live in.

Pretty cool, huh?

CREATIONISM

Creationism is the belief that the cosmos, the earth, living organisms, and/or human beings came to be instantaneously in something very much like their current form(s). The contrary point of view, Evolutionary Theory, traces the cosmos back to a singularity called “Big Bang”, the earth back to the earliest stages of planetary formation, living organisms back to pre-biotic molecules and human beings back to non-human ancestors.

Creationists typically cite religious and philosophical reasons for their beliefs while evolutionists cite scientific evidence. Over the past 150 years, few topics have spilled as much ink as the battle between these two schools of thought. The ferocity of the debate is fueled by two factors:

(1)   Evolutionists by and large assign zero weight to the religious and philosophical arguments of creationists; creationists in turn undervalue scientific evidence. Unlike most debates, here there is no common repository of evidence that the two sides can sift through and argue over. It is as though Creationists and Evolutionists lived in two totally different worlds.

(2)   Alongside this intellectual divide, there is an equally large cultural chasm. These folks share nothing in common, not even a beer at a bar. They live in different neighborhoods, work at different jobs, play at different games, worship (or not) in different ways. Turns out, they actually do live in totally different worlds.

In this essay, I hope to suggest a new way of looking at the fundamental question itself. I have little hope that I will be able to bridge the cultural divide separating Creationists from Evolutionists but I do hope that I may find some common intellectual ground after all.

Evolutionists’ strongest argument is simply to point at the world as it is today:

(1)   Radiation from the Cosmic Microwave Background now just reaching Earth tells of a very different universe 15 billion years ago.

(2)   A cursory dig through the earth’s crust reveals layers of sediment and formations of rock that testify to violent seismic activity and gradual climate change.

(3)   That same dig turns up fossils that suggest that creatures unknown today once roamed Earth and that familiar creatures once had very different features than they have now. That same fossil record appears to link modern homo-sapiens to earlier, now extinct, primate species.

(4)   A study of the genome, human or otherwise, suggests that a process of, well, ‘evolution’ must have occurred to produce the complex but related structures we see today.

Evolutionists’ second argument points at the way the world is changing right before our eyes: mutation, adaptation, speciation, etc… are processes that are being observed in laboratories and in the wild right now, in our very own day.

The world we live in seems consistent with Evolution Theory. This suggests that we ask ourselves what sort of world would be consistent with Creationism?

At first thought, Creationism would seem to suggest a steady state universe capable of only local changes. The cosmos would not be expanding or contracting. Why would it and where would the impetus for such expansion/contraction come from? Geological formations should exhibit greater uniformity of design and composition than they do, the fossil record should include only those species and those traits we see today and DNA coding should be much simpler and perhaps less prone to copying errors and to mutation.

This model of universe, simple and spare, is what we would expect from the application of Occam’s Razor to the act of creation. But there is a problem with this approach: Is such a world even possible? We know from engineering that a rigid structure, however aesthetically pleasing it may be, is not a strong structure. It may be that messy redundancy and extraneous recursive loops are necessary to make our world as resilient as it is.

A simpler, more elegant cosmos, earth, biosphere or genome might be too fragile to sustain itself for any protracted period of time. Tiny perturbations would tend to magnify rather than dampen as they do in our actual experience…and as they do according to the Evolutionists’ model.

Creationism is not the same thing as Determinism, not by a long shot, but they do share some features in common. In both cases, initial conditions must be defined almost perfectly. Slight perturbations in any deterministic model will totally overwhelm its ability to predict, i.e. to ‘determine’. Creationism, at least in some of its flavors, rules out any initial variability whatsoever.

We also know that observed phenomena in a perfectly deterministic system do not differ from those in a totally chaotic system. Genesis describes the state of the universe prior to creation as chaotic. If Creationism requires absolutely precise initial conditions, then could anything at all have ever been created? Or would primordial chaos persist?

I strongly suspect that a steady state universe of the kind apparently suggested by most flavors of Creationism is ontologically impossible, and if it is impossible then, well, it’s not possible, no matter how much it may appeal to our sensibilities. Remember the old school yard paradox: can God make a rock he cannot lift? Well, can any creative mechanism spawn a universe whose very existence is impossible?

So it seems the Evolutionists have won the day; Creationism has been debunked, right? Not so fast! Our conclusions are based on the assumptions we made concerning the nature of a created universe. What if those assumptions are incorrect? What if there is another kind of universe compatible with the Creationist hypothesis?

That might change everything; but is there such a universe? Yes there is…and it turns out that the other universe that could be compatible with the Creationist hypothesis is…THIS ONE!

If the universe we live in today requires a certain sort of ‘past’ in order to account for its current features, then wouldn’t a creative mechanism have ensured that the universe had just such a past encoded in it? And if it requires redundancy and recursive loops in order to be resilient, wouldn’t a creative mechanism have ensured that those were built-in as well? And if the universe we live in today requires adaptive ability to sustain itself into the future, wouldn’t a creative mechanism have endowed universe with precisely that adaptive ability?

Now by ‘creative mechanism’, I do not necessarily mean a transcendent God. Intelligent design is only one version of Creationism. The Catholic Church maintains that Big Bang Theory is perfectly compatible with an intelligent, transcendent creator; likewise, Creationism does not necessarily require such an intelligent, transcendent creator.

The cosmology of Alfred North Whitehead, for example, could be read as an example of ‘creationism without a creator’. Whitehead’s cosmology does include a category of ‘God’ but Whitehead’s God is no ‘creator’, at least not in the traditional sense of the term.

Whitehead’s God offers a primordial valuation of certain pre-existent “eternal objects” and a consequent valuation of “actual entities” (i.e. events). Against this background, the universe is entirely self-creative and the acts that constitute that universe are utterly free.

So if the battle between Evolutionists and Creationists is not about the source of cosmogenesis, what is it about? For one thing, it’s about the timing. Both agree that cosmogenesis occurs at a singularity. For Evolutionists, that singularity can only be Big Bang; for Creationists, it can be any Planck moment ‘after’ Big Bang, right up to the present day. In fact, it could be any Plank moment after Big Bang right up to Big Freeze (or Big Crunch)…if you’ll allow my current experiences to be part of the encoded past. But there is more!

Evolutionists hold that cosmogenesis began at the Big Bang singularity and ‘evolved’ to its current state. Creationists, on the other hand, believe that the universe came to be with many of its current features and, if necessary, it’s past already intact. This is the fundamental matter of dispute between the two camps.

Superficially, both positions seem plausible. But one of the great challenges of Evolutionary Theory has been trying to figure out how the universe we see today could have resulted from the Big Bang singularity. How did all the ultra-precise ratios (e.g. electronic mass vs. protonic mass) that characterize our universe come to be what they are?

It turns out that the viability of our universe rests on about 25 ‘key numbers’. Each of these numbers is in ratio with other key numbers. If any of these ratios were off by more than a few percent (sometimes much less), the universe as we know it could not exist. Yet we have absolutely no idea where these ratios came from.

A ‘creationist’ cosmology like Whitehead’s solves that dilemma. The key ratios arise from God’s conceptual valuations of the eternal objects. God does not ‘create’ the cosmos but sets initial conditions such that cosmogenesis is possible.

The probability that these ratios just happened to set themselves the way they are is even lower than the probability of the Cubs winning a World Series. Yet, if cosmogenesis occurred at some ‘later’ point along the timeline, any later point along the timeline, then the probability that it would have included all the key ratios already intact is 100%. (Otherwise, it would be a still born universe of the type described earlier.)

A sure thing vs. the Chicago Cubs? Hmm, I would say Evolutionary Theory was in deep trouble after all, wouldn’t you?

It turns out that the Evolutionists’ empirical evidence is only effective against a straw universe. Without that straw universe, their evidence is just as compatible with Creationism as it is with Evolutionary Theory. Based on this analysis, I do not believe that there is any evidence or any experiment that we can even conceive of that would be able to demonstrate a verifiable difference between these two hypotheses.

But wait! The game is not over. Evolutionary Theory may be down 10^10^10^10 to 1 but there is still one second left on the clock. Can the evolutionists pull this game out of the hat? Not since Harvard ‘beat’ Yale in 1968 has anyone attempted such a feat.

Here’s how they might do it:

(1)   Yes, it is much easier to start off with the initial conditions properly set and then trace a pathway back to Big Bang than it is to start at Big Bang and trace a pathway forward to the way things are today. But ultimately, it’s the same journey.

A child beginning at the end of a maze may get to its start much more quickly than a child beginning at the start will get to its end. That’s because the teleological kid is able to avoid all the false paths. But at the end of the day, it’s still just one straight line. Whether you begin at Big Bang and move forward or at 5000 BCE and move backwards, you still trace a single straight line and the line goes both ways.

(2)   We said earlier that there was no conceivable experiment that would ever be able to demonstrate a verifiable difference between the Creationist and the Evolutionist hypotheses. According to 20th century language philosophy, the meaning of a proposition, at least a scientific proposition, rests precisely in the experimental procedures that could potentially falsify it. Since there is no experimental procedure that could conceivably differentiate the Creationist hypothesis from the Evolutionist hypothesis we are forced to the startling conclusion that there is no difference is meaning between the two hypotheses. They ‘mean’ precisely the same thing!

So our game has ended in a tie after all. It is 1968 all over again (Harvard 28, Yale 28). But where does this leave us? Wittgenstein said that when a proposition is devoid of any denotative meaning, we may still be left with “meaningful poetry” and that is certainly what we have here.

Scientifically, it turns out that the Evolutionist and the Creationist share more common ground that either ever imagined; but culturally, they remain in parallel universes. The poetry of a cosmos springing into actuality at the primal singularity and evolving into the world we know today, like a cat fighting its way out of a paper bag, is powerful imagery.

Equally powerful, but radically different, is the more peaceful image of a universe springing into being with its basic parameters fully intact, its past completely encoded, and its capacity for homeostatic adaptation in place.

There is no scientifically meaningful difference between these two imageries but there is an enormous aesthetic difference. Since much of the Creationist/Evolutionist conflict has taken plan in the context of Judeo-Christian theology, you might ask which aesthetic is more compatible with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Perhaps surprisingly, I would put the Judeo-Christian tradition squarely in the Evolutionist camp. There is nothing ‘steady state’ about the Judeo-Christian cosmos. On the contrary, the journey from Genesis through Revelation is all about change (‘evolution’), change reflected in cosmology, history, human development and eschatology.

As long as there are human beings, we will cloak our common world with different ‘subjective forms’ and we will use different metaphors to describe our experience. It is important to understand, however, that these differences are ultimately poetic, not scientific. This will not be enough to make the Evolutionist “lie down” (Isaiah 11:6) with the Creationist…but it might be enough to persuade them not to eat one another.