You ask if I could say the same — if I would convert instantly to atheism given rigorously proven data that God does not exist — and I see a couple errors in this question. Initially, I think that atheism isn’t an idea such as one can convert to. Rather, atheism is a negation of the belief in a God or gods. It’s really not a matter of converting from one belief to another, but as far as science is concerned, from trivially accepting one proposition (i.e. a hypothesis or theory) to rejecting a proposition. “Converting” is entirely out of the question.

I suppose I digress. Now then, would I convert instantly to atheism given rigorously proven data that God does not exist?
Strictly speaking, the existence of God remains outside of the limits of science. So while no one could ever disprove the existence of God (b/c science merely deals in disproving, rather than proving) any Christian could also never presume to be more than an agnostic, as far as the limits of science are concerned. So again I have to ask what the point of your proposition is?

Also, science is amoral. So, I’m really quite curious what you mean by an “ethical scientist”. I believe that any scientist should, indeed, rightly be a skeptic, which casts into a fair bit of doubt your statement that a scientist would instantly convert to Christianity. I remind you that Christianity is far from being the only belief system, religion or the like that is based upon the existence of a deity.

You say, “Creationists [...] need only misinterpret the data to fit your ideological goals.” See, this is where the element of peer-review comes into the scientific method. And I risk sounding somewhat unscientific in daring you to do this, but please, if you find I misinterpret any data (ideological goals, for the moment, aside) don’t hesitate but to correct me. Seriously.

Scientists postulate based on existing evidence and the reproduction repeatable results in their pursuit of the unknown.

Creationists such as yourself, the unknown already being “known” via faith, need only misinterpret the data to fit your ideological goals. Luckily, there’s only ever one answer – “God”. How convenient for you. It saves you the trouble of actually engaging in meaningful scientific work while at the same time poking “holes” in theories that threaten your ideology.

Any ethical scientist would convert instantly to Christianity given rigorously proven data that God exists.

Can you say the same re: God not existing, given the mounting evidence that the universe is much much bigger than an anthropomorphic god derived from a text even now becoming increasingly culturally irrelevant? Oh right, the only thing that could create such a universe would be an even more complex God. Phew, that makes things easy!

“Does that create a connection between Nazism and molecular biology? No.”

Did I say that laminin creates a connection between Christianity and molecular biology? Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t, but I didn’t say that.

“….doesn’t base its fundamental theories based on what structures look like…”

I also didn’t say that Christianity bases its fundamental theories on what structures look like. Neither, I believe, did Mr. Giglio. Correct me if I’m wrong, seriously.

That being said, thank you for the comment. You made a very good point which I hope I have addressed to your satisfaction.

As P.Z. Myers has pointed out, the potassium channels in the brain look an awful lot like a swastika.

Does that create a connection between Nazism and molecular biology? No.

The scientific community, it turns out, doesn’t base its fundamental theories based on what structures look like, and that’s why there hasn’t been a mass movement of bio-chemists converting to Christianity.

Just out of curiosity, since you mention it in this most recent blog post, what is your stance on the creationism/evolution? I know you are religious, but that doesn’t necessarily guarantee anything one way or the other and your post was a little ambiguous. (Not trying to start a debate, I really am just curious…)

Maybe this isn’t quite what you’re looking for as a suggestion, but I’m always really keen on mammalian evolution, especially similarities between whales and land mammals (vestigial organs, behavior similarities etc.)

Peace.