As one of our letter-writers noted recently, the media have recently entered the "silly season" , when genuine news items and opinions are at a premium and we feel free (indeed we are obliged) to publish all kinds of rubbish with little expectation that any of it will be taken seriously.
For reference, readers should take note that the silly season officially begins on July 13th and ends on September 7th, and any articles or letters submitted during this time-span will be treated with appropriate levity. The season does not quite coincide with the dog days, the period of inactivity and decline reckoned in antiquity from the heliacal rising of Sirius, the Dog Star, but it comes pretty close. The silly season also has much in common with the doldrums, that state of stagnation or depression associated with the equatorial region of the Atlantic Ocean which is subject, like so many of our staff and contributors at this time of year, to calms, sudden storms and light unpredictable winds.
All in all, it is a fun time. Not surprisingly then, one of the "issues" being aired in our letters page in recent days is the age-old one of evolution. The recent controversy originated from an article by Dr Dominique Tassot which cast doubt on Darwin's theory. This was published on July 18th, a mere five days after the official opening of the silly season, and since then we have had an excellent response from readers both supporting and denouncing the article, to the extent that the controversy rose to the top of the page barely a week after it began.
The great thing about the evolution debate is that it has been going on forever, and is unlikely ever to end. It dies down for a while, then pops up again when least expected. Indeed its origins are shrouded in mystery: did it arrive fully formed, one wonders, or did it, well, evolve?
The creationists apparently believe that it was put in place by a superior being, while the evolutionists prefer to cite a number of factors for its emergence and development, such as the existence of an external energy source (the sun). At any rate, the debate often becomes quite heated, not least because it involves so many sciences and belief systems, so that everyone feels they have something to contribute.
When it comes to evolution itself, the latter factor is particularly annoying for scientists, who quite naturally believe that philosophy, never mind the man in the street, has nothing to contribute to the debate.
Scientists also seem to "evolve" towards anger and sarcasm in this area rather quickly (over a micro-period, you might say) and are very quick to dismiss what was described in one recent letter as "creationist drivel" and the "pseudoscience" behind it.
Raising the blood pressure of scientists even higher, the creationists usually react to this sort of biting criticism with the most polite, understanding and (most irritating of all) forgiving attitudes. The underlying implication clearly is that the scientists have not quite evolved to the level of understanding, knowledge, insight (and patience) achieved by the creationists. Ironic or what?
Meanwhile the man in the street, or at any rate The Irish Times letter-writer at home, is not going to be denied his say, and will quite rightly bow neither to scientist nor creationist. I particularly liked the letter from a writer who said he was "no scientist" but who politely rebutted Dr Tassot's arguments partially on grounds which were "obvious to anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics". Yes indeed; regarding nuclear power I myself am no scientist, but surely its value is obvious to anyone with an even rudimentary knowledge of charge-exchange accelerators, who can distinguish a synchotron from a synchrocyclotron?
I am more concerned by a published letter from a scientist based in Madrid, who argued that despite what Dr Tassot said, evolution does not ignore laws of physics: "If you shut someone in a closed box they decay in a timescale of weeks, agreeing perfectly with the law of entropy."
This is a bit worrying. Scientists are not given to making that kind of specific assertion without research to back it up. Nor would a reputable scientist make a general assertion of fact on the basis of a single experiment. If I were not so apprehensive I would like to know more about those closed- box investigations.
As for the law of entropy, which (as you know) stipulates that systems tend to lose order, tending towards disorganisation and lack of complexity, that is basically what the silly season is all about. Arguments about whether it evolved, or appeared fully formed in all its glorious daftness from day one will continue, but it may be that for the duration of the season the chief external energy source (the sun) simply goes to people's heads.
Bglacken@irish-times.ie