Letter
Bryan Appleyard accuses some scientists of cultural arrogance. But the 17
pages of your report are concerned with Christian creationism. I know it’s the
Christians who are causing the fuss. My point is that they are committing a huge
act of cultural arrogance by imposing their creation myth on a world of many
creations as if theirs were the only one. This shows that they are blinkered,
ignorant or disregarding of all the other cultures of the world. I suspect all
three.
A person who is not so blind can see that the world and Universe have been
created innumerable times. North America plus Universe by native American gods;
Australia plus Universe by Aboriginal gods; South Americas plus Universe by
Amerindian gods. In fact, the Middle East had already been created by several
cultures which were contemporary to the first Judaeo-Christians.
Letter
I find it depressing and more than a little frightening that the medieval
view of creationism appears to be on the increase. Surprisingly, though, I found
myself agreeing with some of Bryan Appleyard’s conclusions.
Cosmologists and physicists who write popular books do have a lot to answer
for. Many titles use the word “God” in a mistaken attempt to attract a wider
audience and to give the impression of profundity. The problem is that the God
of most of these authors is more of a philosophical exercise, a shorthand for
the rules by which the Universe operates. To many members of the public,
however, this is seen as an endorsement of the Judaeo-Christian mythology of a
personal God, with all the trappings of miracles, resurrections and the
rest.
Letter
I would like to compliment New 杏吧原创 and Debora MacKenzie for
the excellent coverage of creationism. But one point requires clarification.
MacKenzie writes: “The revision also says鈥攊ncorrectly鈥攖hat `natural
selection…does not add new information to the existing genetic code’.”
While the standard model of evolution does indeed involve the addition of new
information, this information arises through other mechanisms鈥攑rimarily
mutation. The mechanism of selection (whether natural or, as in Darwin’s famous
stock-breeding analogy, artificial) does not add new information. Rather it does
precisely what its name states: it selects among existing strains. It can
increase or decrease the prevalence of a given bit of genetic information within
the pool, and can even over time鈥攐r swiftly, in the case of a lethal
mutation鈥攅liminate some information. By its very nature, though, it cannot
create new information.
To speak of natural selection as if it were the whole of the evolutionary
process is to create confusion, which can only give aid and comfort to
creationists.
Letter
Your report is remarkably sparse regarding the scientific facts. You accuse
creationists of cherry-picking, “discarding anything that doesn’t fit”. I
suggest that the evolutionist is guilty of committing that very offence. When
recently completing an A-level project about evolution, I was surprised at the
gaping holes in the theory. As a believer in six-day literal creation, I
expected to come across hard arguments in favour of evolution with which to
grapple, but found that evolutionists have little evidence to discuss, and take
the concept for granted.
Creating a stir
The issue on creationism
(22 April, p 32)
was probably the most depressing I
have ever read. A century or more of universal education, the most comprehensive
information and communications network the world has ever seen, and people
worldwide are prepared to believe in utter tosh based on the agenda of a
right-wing pressure group that has more to do with authoritarian control than it
has with religion. For the record, I count myself a Christian.
杏吧原创s hope logic and truth will overcome blind prejudice and fanatical
bigotry. They will not. An audience that has never been taught to evaluate
evidence is not going to be convinced by any amount of it. Please can we fight
fire with fire and attack creationism for what it is. This is not the time for
politeness.
Clear cut
It was interesting to read that there appear to be two distinct species of
elephant in Africa
(1 April, p 15),
but not surprising. My family produced ivory
veneers for piano keyboards from 1800 to 1990. Once a tusk had been cut open, it
was possible for the experts among us to tell its origin. Ivory from different
countries had different characteristics. In particular, ivory from India
(Elephas maximus) and from Zaire had a translucent quality, whereas ivory
from other parts of Africa was opaque. We often speculated about the reasons for
these differences. Two species of African elephant seems a logical explanation.
Letter
As a palaeontologist, I know that the evidence for a lengthy history of life
on Earth is coherent and well documented. Although the theory of evolution is
strongly supported by the fossil record, our interpretation of Earth’s history
is ultimately not dependent on whether evolutionary theory is correct. The
creation versus evolution issue is a red herring.
All of science is under attack from young-Earth creationism, and it is time
that experts in other fields spoke up. After all, if the Universe was only
thrown together some six thousand years ago it makes nonsense of all scientific
disciplines.
Letter
I found it interesting that Tom Willis only managed to answer six questions
before referring to both Hitler and the Nazis. On the Internet discussion
newsgroups (Usenet) there is a rule called Godwin’s law which states: “As a
Usenet thread grows, the probability of a reference to Hitler or Nazis
approaches 1.00. Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
recognised that the poster has lost the argument.”
Slow but sure
Roger Taylor
(15 April, p 40)
seems to contradict himself. He says that we
may be nearing an irreducible minimum of road accidents “where the number of
different causes equals the number of accidents”. Bad driving, often by usually
good drivers, is cited as the most common factor in accidents. He concludes that
this problem can only be solved by improved awareness. This seems to me quite
the wrong conclusion. No amount of awareness will eliminate all momentary lapses
by normally good drivers. The real problem is that increased speed makes the
outcome of such lapses worse. Since we cannot eliminate the periodic bad driving
that causes accidents we must reduce their impact by reducing speed.
Letter
I am concerned to note that an anagram of “creationists” is “or a scientist”.
Can there be no middle way?
The articles on creationism produced one of our biggest ever postbags. For
many more letters on this topic, see our website鈥擡d
Letter
Anyone who argues that 747s, combs and coffee cups are complex systems not
produced by random forces, therefore complex systems cannot be produced by
random forces, is in no position to criticise anyone else’s reasoning. I would
advise Tom Willis to go back to school and brush up on the fundamentals of
logic. He might also benefit from contemplating a snowflake.
Moreover, Darwinism does not lead to eugenics, which hinged on a value
judgement (that some humans are better than others) with no scientific basis.
Nor does eugenics lead automatically to mass slaughter. One doesn’t see horses
being rounded up and shot because they’re not quite up to racing calibre. The
Holocaust was not the consequence of a philosophy rooted in Darwinism.
Falling scales
Further to your Feedback item of 25 March, I fitted a Scalewatcher device
just over two years ago in the hope it might reduce scaling in my electric
kettle and on the heat-exchanger pipes in my gas boiler and hot water cylinder.
Earlier this year I noticed a big change in the kettle: scale was no longer
building up, and what was there was flaking off.
I wrote to Portsmouth Water asking what change they had made to my water
supply.
They replied that no change had been made, and that on the contrary,
the quality of water in Wickham has been consistent for many years.
They added that Scalewatcher devices do indeed work under the right
conditions, although what those conditions are remains to be understood. So
let’s not be bigoted about it. Something here needs more explanation.
Letter
I read zoology at Oxford and then became a teacher of zoology and biology.
Gradually I began to have scientific doubts about evolution. Eventually, after
21 years of teaching, I became a biblical creationist. I would like to make a
few comments:
1. “Science is all about devising a theory to explain the evidence and then
testing it.” I agree. Empirical science is all about observations, measurements
and repeatable experiments in the “here and now”. So anything which happened in
the past cannot be tested by scientific method. Hence evolution is not science,
nor is it a scientific theory.
2. “Science isn’t religion.” Correct. But evolutionism is religion. Evolution
can never be proved. Those who believe it must accept it by faith in the same
way biblical creation is accepted by faith.
3. There is no true evidence for evolution. Both evolutionists and
creationists start with the same scientific evidence. They interpret that
evidence according to their world view.
Letter
You describe a proposal to remove CO2 from the atmosphere by
fertilising the ocean. I question whether this would work. The organic material
in the skeletons would probably be re-oxidised to CO2. The inorganic
material consists mostly of silica and calcium phosphate, but it would contain
some carbonate.
However, the production of a carbonate ion (CO32-) from carbon
dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) would produce two equivalents of
acid (2H+). These would immediately react with bicarbonate ions
(2HCO3–) to produce two molecules of CO2. So the net reaction is
2HCO3– 鈫� CO32- + H2O + CO2,
meaning that carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere. As CO2 levels
rise, the ocean dissolves more CO2. This lowers the pH very
slightly, which eventually leads to dissolution of carbonates from the bottom,
or less precipitation of calcium carbonate from the river water flowing into the
sea. Thus the ocean acts as a carbon sink as the concentration of bicarbonate
increases.
The proposed scheme acts in opposition to this important mechanism for
removing CO2 from the air.
Full circle
While I applaud efforts to address the pressing issue of global warming, I am
unsure that engineered solutions are the answer
(8 April, p 18).
Do we understand natural systems well enough to tinker like bucket chemists with the
world’s oceans?
For example, has Ian Jones considered that Chile’s coastline is shadowed just
offshore by the Peru-Chile trench? Carbonate-bearing planktonic skeletons
deposited off the continental shelf will presumably descend rapidly in the deep,
cold water of the trench to below the “carbonate compensation depth”, and
release their stored carbon dioxide.
I imagine that CO2 release will be about as rapid as the initial
sequestration process. Not much of a long-term solution in this location.
Split brain
Reading the dialogue between Alison Motluk and Sandra Witelson
(18 March, p 43),
I cannot understand why Einstein’s family gave his brain to a clinical
pathologist instead of to a laboratory engaged in research on the human brain.
Was it a donation, or was a price was attached to it? When a brain is
fragmented, how much information is lost? And can a fragmented brain be
reassembled to its original state?
Relating Einstein’s extraordinary ability to the uniqueness in the anatomy of
his Sylvian fissure has two deficiencies. First, no comparison is made between
Einstein’s brain and the brains of persons possessing the same or similar
ability. Second, comparison of his brain with about 150 normal brains is
statistically insignificant.
Letter
It is clearly possible for there to be more promiscuous men than promiscuous
women.
For example, imagine in the six-person community of Ann, Betty, Carol, Derek,
Edward and Fred there are five heterosexual relationships: A+D, A+E, A+F, B+D
and C+E.
If promiscuity means having sexual relationships with more than one person,
then two men (Derek and Edward), but only one woman (Ann) are promiscuous. This
imbalance is achieved by arranging that Anne is more promiscuous than any
man.
It takes two
John Drake states that the view that men are more promiscuous than women
involves a physical impossibility
(22 April, p 50).
It seems to me that what it involves is rather a logical impossibility. If degrees of
promiscuity are measured by the number of sexual relations with a person of the opposite
sex (in any heterosexual population with equal numbers of males and females), we can
prove that the net promiscuity of each sex must be identical.
We can also prove that if there are more males than females, the net
promiscuity of males must be lower than the net promiscuity of females.
Twist in time
Thank you for the recent story on wormholes
(15 April, p 12).
Readers might be interested in the 1997 dissertation by Laszlo Forizs of Vanderbilt
University, “A New Class of Solutions to the Einstein Equations: Lorentzian
Wormholes with Rotating Throat”.
This shows it is possible to have a stable wormhole entirely without the
concept of exotic matter, and entirely consistent with the known laws of
physics.
Mixed measures
Your piece on Wordtech fax paper with its size of 216 mm 脳
30 m 脳 陆” (Feedback, 8 April)
reminded me that, at least until 1970 and probably still,
the standard units in the battery industry for the density of lead oxide for use
in battery plate manufacture was grams per cubic inch.
May I fume?
The article this week on premature ageing caused by smoking
(15 April, p 18)
helps to explain why lifelong smokers often have that “too long in the tanning
factory” look. However, the excessive wrinkling associated with such individuals
is surely also a result of countless “smoke in their eyes” incidents, together
with the deepening grimace smokers wear after each tax increase.
And so to bed
You requested a translation of the European Space Agency research
announcement on bed rest studies, which appeared in Feedback
(15 April).
First, weightlessness has multiple effects on the human body, including bone
mineral loss, muscle deconditioning and immune system changes. Many of these
physiological changes can be simulated on Earth: one way of doing so is to
confine someone to bed with a head-down tilt of 6 degrees to mimic the fluid
shift within the body. This also removes the action of gravity on the gravity-dependent
bones and muscles that we use to walk upright.
To counteract the detrimental effects of weightlessness researchers are
trying to develop countermeasures, such as exercise programmes, drugs and the
elasticated “Penguin suit” that opposes movement of the limbs and so reduces
muscle loss. Bed-rest studies are used to validate their effectiveness.