How do we reach the people who have been mauled by shrews?

Ever stepped on a yellow jacket nest? You should try it!

No, really, you shouldn't. For your convenience, I present the things you should avoid in bold (excepting, of course, the word "bold").

Yellow jackets love to build their nests in forest detritus, such as leaf piles and rotten logs (so watch it). They are incredibly touchy, getting upset over the least little things, like a human coming along and flattening their home.

My story:

A friend and I had decided to do some trailblazing on a fine summer day. We started at a rocky bluff (see picture) and moved downhill. It was a hot day on a steep slope.

I stopped to catch my breath and admire the view. I would have taken a picture of said view had I not stopped to catch my breath whilst standing on a yellow jacket nest.

Having already experienced a yellow jacket swarm once before, I wanted to curl up in a ball and weep uncontrollably (no bold; weeping is perfectly acceptable).

Fortunately, adrenaline kicked in. I became strangely calm, almost detached from the situation. That lasted for almost a full second before the first sting came. Then I started shrieking.

My friend and I enjoyed a frantic scramble back up the steep slope, in the hot Pennsylvania summer, getting repeatedly stung by irate yellow jackets.

They chased us a good half mile. My friend made out alright with only 6 stings. I had 15. I still occasionally have nightmares about that day.

So, here's a question: what do we do with people who are legitimately afraid of nature because, say, they were once attacked by badgers, and so they wouldn't mind seeing a few more acres of forest get bulldozed? Has anyone had an experience in nature that was so awful that they won't ever go back? What do we do with them?

I loved hiking too much to give it up after the attack, but I never go trailblazing anymore except in the dead of winter. So we might start with gentle coaxing. Take the traumatized person for a walk along a well-maintained trail in a busy park where the risk of badger attacks remains low. Choose a trail that includes a waterfall or something equally spectacular. Try to slowly rekindle the capacity in that person to love nature.

Either that or get them right back into the saddle by dropping them out of a helicopter in front of a buffalo stampede (the "sink or swim" method).

Defending Science from “Scientists”

Mankind's discoveries through the years of scientific exploration simply blow my mind. Although a comprehensive list of the most important scientific achievements goes well beyond the scope of a blog post, some of the most memorable moments in the history of science include:

• Identifying the double-helix sequencing of DNA
• Demonstrating that God doesn’t exist
• Describing the basic force of plate tectonics
• Harnessing electricity
• ...wait, what?

My list has been influenced by a recent ad campaign featured on the sides of London buses. The message on the ads is simple: "There's probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy life."

The ads came about in large part from the support of Richard Dawkins, a professor of Biology at Oxford University and a world-renowned atheist. Dawkins has expressed many times in interviews and debates (like this one from his website and this one from the Technology, Entertainment, and Design (TED) conference) a sentiment along the lines of: "I believe that the existence of a supreme being, a supernatural God, is a scientific hypothesis just like any other."

Far be it for me to contradict an esteemed Oxford professor, but as a student of science I think he's missing the mark. Environmentalists understand only too well the trouble of misrepresented science. Contentious political issues like global warming seem to encourage the misuse of scientific explanations:

• A cold winter day proves that global warming doesn't exist


• Earth history shows that the planet has warmed before, therefore humans are not causing the Earth to warm now


• A 10 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot possibly do any harm, since 10 is a small number and 1,000,000 is a big number

And, in all fairness, atheist scientists must not receive all of the blame for muddling good science and faith to the detriment of both.

We scientists (and here I mean any student of the scientific process) must fight to protect the legitimacy of the scientific method (and, if we have any time left over, we should still try to discover things). Science deals with all things observable, all things part of nature; in other words, all things natural.

Science cannot see God, whether or not God is there to be seen. So to address the question of God in scientific terms harms scientific integrity. Every time someone tries to back up a non-scientific idea with science, no matter the argument or the purity of their intentions, they harm the credibility of truly scientific explorations.

We, as human beings, have a staggering amount of ideas and opinions. But we must always distinguish between what we have shown to be true and what we believe to be True, no matter how well founded we believe our ideas to be.