Letters : . . .
St. Neots, Cambridgeshire
Scientific evidence may seem to call into question the existence of God, but
if God is the infinite and all-embracing being who created the Universe (and all
the interesting scientific quirks that keep large populations of people busy for
most of their lives), then he is unlikely to adhere to a deduced logic
concerning his existence and powers. He certainly will not have any sort of
understandable “mind” that we can look into for answers.
Humans have struggled with their place in the Universe ever since they first
appeared millions of years ago.
However, if the entire world is solely governed by physical laws that render
“inquiries into the purpose of life meaningless” (D. W. Dew) then why does
anyone ever want to inquire?
One could speculate and argue ad infinitum on this kind of issue, but the
point is, science cannot be used to fuel this particular debate.
Letters : Red, red alkali
Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire
The acid test for rotting cellulose nitrate heirlooms aroused my curiosity
(This Week, 7 September, p 12). In the light of history this was surely not an
accidental discovery?
Cresol red has long been used as a sensitive colorimetric reagent for
determination of hydrogen ion concentration. I have a 1928 reprint of a colour
chart from W. Mansfield Clark’s The Determination of Hydrogen Ions
which shows the change from yellow at pH 7.2 to deep pink at p
H 8.8 in the alkaline range.
The CRC Handbook lists another colour change from red to yellow, between
pH 0 and pH 1. The nitric acid resulting from oxidation of
cellulose nitrate will produce an acid solution in this range. Thymol blue, with
a critical pH indicator range of pH 1.2 to pH 2.8,
might give additional information on the early stages of the oxidation.
Before the advent of the ubiquitous glass electrode, B.D.H. marketed
pH indicator papers of several of the sulphonepthalein dyes, which probably
included cresol red. Does the apparent novelty of Julia Fenn’s technique reflect
our current neglect of “low tech” methods? It would probably have been the first
approach tried by a chemist in the 1930s.
Letters : Seminal myth
Australia
Roger Lewin perpetuates his own myth that maternal inheritance of
mitochondrial DNA happens because sperm lack mitochondrial DNA (New
杏吧原创, Science, 17 August, p 18).
This is just plain wrong. Mammalian sperm not only contain mitochondria and
mitochondrial DNA but pass them on to the egg at fertilisation. The only
known exception to this rule is the giant sperm of the Chinese hamster (and
possibly some insectivores).
Furthermore the human sperm mitochondria can be identified in the embryo for
several days. For an illustration of this see http://numbat.
murdoch.edu.au/spermatology/sath01.html.
This particular myth of the missing sperm mitochondria has now invaded
standard anthropological texts because it supports the “African Eve” model of
human origins. It has even invaded Richard Dawkins’s writing, who stated in
The Blind Watchmaker that “Sperms are too small to contain mitochondria” (p
176). It has no basis in fact.
Letters : Safer to scrape
Cheddar, Somerset
Your item on removal of bee stings may give readers the wrong advice (In
Brief, 10 August, p 13). Kirk Visscher compares squeezing with scraping the
sting out. I suspect that he implies squeezing the flesh around the wound, which
probably does not differ greatly from scraping.
However, the danger with squeezing such a small area is that victims may
accidentally squeeze the venom sac, which is often attached to the sting and
lancets; consequently more venom is injected. Also, in my experience of 20 years
of beekeeping, scraping is much more efficient than squeezing.
Any beekeeper would agree that time is more important than anything. Don’t
waste time looking for a knife or other implement but simply scratch the sting
out with the fingernail as quickly as possible.
Letters : Butterfly on high
Teddington, Middlesex
The problems that Edith’s butterfly (This Week, 31 August, p 6) may be facing
due to global warming means that its range might ultimately be confined to a
series of isolated high altitude island populations.
This suggests a series of experiments in which formerly contiguous
populations are observed and the genetic differences between the now isolated
remnant communities examined and compared with time. Edith’s butterfly might be
unsuitable as it can fly, and so any population islands could stay in genetic
contact. Otherwise insect species would seem to be ideal candidates for study
because of their short life cycles.
It would be interesting to know how rapidly these populations diverge and how
long they can be isolated and still interbreed. Perhaps we might even see new
species evolving as a direct result of that rather larger, unplanned and
risk-filled experiment in climate change we now all irrevocably seem to be part
of.
Letters : Poor pedestrians
Hitchin, Hertfordshire
Mick Hamer understates his case when he says that British governments have
failed to act to reduce pedestrian casualties (“A hundred years of carnage”, 10
August, p 14). They have actively hindered the efforts of others to do so.
In the early 1970s Durham County Council was so impressed with the system of
separate pedestrian paths away from road traffic in the new towns of Washington
and Cramlington that it decided that all future housing development would follow
this pattern.
The first time that Durham council tried to put this policy into effect, the
developer appealed to the minister and Durham policy was overturned.
Just think of it, this might have been done 20 years ago and think of the
benefits by now.
Letters : Saving rain
Aberdeen
John Neimer’s suggestion for capturing and using rainwater is an excellent
one (Letters, 7 September). An essential requirement is that the building code
should be modified to require that this be done.
Most buildings already have a cistern in the roof, whose use could be adapted
to this end. A slightly more radical step would be to filter and re-use “grey”
water (from baths and showers)for flushing toilets. Some innovative
organisations are already doing these things here in Australia. In the drier
parts of the country, it was once commonplace for rainwater to be collected and
used for all purposes. Many people continue to do so.
Letters : Way out
London
In response to your concerns during the summer about computers crashing as
the year changes to 2000 (Letters, 13 July etc.), surely the more worrying thing
is the global positioning satellite.
According to Electronics And Beyond (Maplin, 1996), the atomic
clocks in GPS satellites are accurate to 1 second in 70 000 years, and a
discrepancy of 1/1000th of a second means a location some 300 kilometres
out.
I dread to think what would happen if the clocks became 20 years out.
According to my calculations, that would be 11 730 000 000 000 miles out.
Letters : God's squad
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Peter Rowland asserts that “religion is based on received faith while science
is based on perpetual doubt” (Letters, 7 September, p 48). He could not be more
wrong. Many tenets of science are not testable. For example, cosmology has to
use the untestable assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout
the Universe. No cosmological observation could be interpreted without using
this assumption.
But all religions are in a state of constant change because the received
belief from one generation has to be developed for each generation (this is why
there are theologians). It could be argued that most science is based on
received faith while all religion is based on perpetual doubt. This argument
would be stupid, but it would be more true than Rowland’s assertion.
D. W. Dew thinks that: “Theologians now cope with science because its
achievements are too overwhelming to ignore.” On the contrary. The scientific
method is based on, and developed from, the methods of Christian theology. And
this is not surprising because most early scientists were Christian theologians.
Christian believers have always taken an interest in science and have been among
its greatest exponents; for example, Newton and Jung.
Barry Foster attempts to discuss the Bible, but his statements indicate that
he has probably not read it. Of course every word in the Bible should not be
taken literally. Pope John was not the first to point this out in 1992. Every
reader of the Bible in history has seen it for him or her self.
Indeed, the very passages Drew cites are a clear demonstration of this. The
first two chapters of the Book of Genesis tell two different creation myths
which originate from two different sets of peoples and contradict each other
(one myth originates from agrarian tribes and the other from nomadic tribes).
Both these myths are true because they both express the belief of their peoples
that the world is cherished by its creator and people have a place in it to care
for it. But they cannot both be literally true, only one of them could be, at
best.
Letters : Weak foundation
Reading, Berkshire
The fall in popularity in A-level physics and chemistry may have a cause so
obvious that the entire teaching profession has overlooked it (Editorial, 24
August, p 3).
A recent inquiry led by Ron Dearing concluded that the most difficult A-level
subjects are mathematics, physics and chemistry. Nevertheless, at most
comprehensive schools it is no longer possible to take GCSEs in physics and
chemistry. Prospective A-level students have to make do with double award
combined science courses. The poor standard of foundation work in physics and
chemistry at GCSE seems to be a perfectly valid reason for avoiding these
difficult subjects at A level.
Of course, the more fashionable comprehensives, such as Holland Park in
Kensington, are bringing back separate sciences, but I fear that most
comprehensives will be stuck with combined science courses for a long time to
come.
Letters : . . .
Broadstairs, Kent
I fail to see why believing scientists “cannot believe in the laws of
physics if they believe that a god can exist outside those laws”, as Foster
claims. Surely, the definition of God involves the idea that He has to be
outside of any laws which He created? Similarly, although it has been shown that
the Universe might not “need a creator and sustainer”, that surely doesn’t mean
that there can’t be one?
Bishop Paley’s argument from design ceased to be convincing decades before
Richard Dawkins “consigned it to the dustbin”; the current bottom line is that
the existence of God cannot be proved by science or philosophy. However, by the
same token, His existence can (unfortunately for Dawkins et al) never be
disproved.
I fail to see why science and religion must always be at odds鈥攊f
science is based on perpetual doubt, how is it that so many scientists think
that God definitely cannot exist? Rather than serving to “puff humanity’s ego”,
surely much of Christianity involves the “depravity” of man and his fundamental
inability to help himself?
Although the “laws of science” have been infinitely useful to humankind, is
anyone bold enough to say that nothing at all could ever exist outside their
remit?
Letters : . . .
Sinfin, Derby
Foster makes much of what he sees as back-pedalling on the part of the
proponents of religion. It seems to me that what he describes is the act of an
established discipline modifying its basic tenets in the light of new knowledge
and thought. Is this not what science does?
Letters : . . .
Coleshill, Warwickshire
Religion in its institutionalised form does what many scientists do in
practice: it clothes with certainty what is only conjecture. So do politicians
and economists. I find it difficult to understand how a person accustomed to the
disciplines of science can assert the absolute truth of a scientific theory, a
religious faith or a political doctrine. That people do this tells us a great
deal about human nature.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with making a working assumption that some
theory is true or some religious precept is correct. That is a personal
decision. The problem arises when we try to force our assumptions down someone
else’s throat or allow them to blind us to the results of scientific
research.
Karl Popper was quite clear in his view of the methodology of science. He was
equally clear that science simply had no comment to make on metaphysical
theories, as they were incapable of falsification. Science and metaphysics were
not at odds, they were on different planets.
Being religious does not entail being a bad scientist鈥攎any renowned
scientists have religious leanings. Branding religious scientists as heretics
has a wearily familiar ring. The problem we should be addressing is bad science,
whether pushed to sell books to the gullible, bolster strange religious ideas or
indeed fascist notions. Side-swipes at religious scientists, or at people hoping
one day to see a meaning in it all, miss the point.
Letters : Tiny but deadly
Sheffield, South Yorkshire
When is the British food industry going to learn from its recent mistakes?
Eggs, carrots, beef, and now fish? Is it really too much to expect that at least
some intelligent thought be spared for the safety of our food, both for
ourselves and our environment?
I cannot believe the ignorance of William Crowe of the Scottish Salmon
Growers’ Association in his arguments for the safe use of ivermectin to control
salmon lice (This Week, 7 September, p 4). “If the whole of the Scottish
industry used ivermectin, it would only amount to the equivalent of two 2 kilo
bags of sugar,” he says. Does he really believe that because you need such a
small amount of a chemical then it must be safe?
Perhaps he should advocate treating the entire human male population of
Scotland (200 000 tonnes) with a similar amount of oestradiol over one year. He
should then try explaining the growth and shrinkage of their various appendages
due to such a “tiny” amount of chemical.