I tutored a student in Seton's chemistry course, and the text compared a chemical reaction to the transubstantiation of the bread and wine at mass.
I wish I were kidding.
that makes no sense - not even from a religious prospective. I thought a central tennet of transubstantiation was that the substence was transformed, but the accidents (meaning everything physically observable) were not. I'm not religious, but I think if I was I'd object to that on the grounds that it's comparing something sacred, holy, and miraculous to a mechanical process that's mundane and completely quantifiable. I don't think we (the collective we that is humanity) do ourselves any favors on either the science or theology fronts by insisting that they must convolve on all topics.