Madam, - Dr Kevin Mitchell (August 27th) says that I have "been using the science page to promote personal religious views".
The implication is that I have been acting inappropriately. I reject this. The interface between science and religion is a recognised, legitimate and topical field of study. I write occasionally on this subject and, when I do, I acknowledge my personal opinions. I believe that to do otherwise would be dishonest.
Dr Mitchell also says I am promoting "the theory of intelligent design, the territory to which creationists have retreated in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection". Again, I have debunked the traditional arguments of the creationists, much to their annoyance, in several of my columns in recent years and I certainly have no intention of supporting the present "intelligent design" tactic of the creationists. I accept the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection every bit as much as Dr Mitchell does.
However, the history of evolution, both cosmic and biological, shows a very remarkable drive towards complexity. Many physical scientists suspect that the theory of evolution as we presently understand it only partly explains the amazingly rapid development of life. There may well be holistic laws of nature as yet undiscovered by science that will explain this drive.
Dr Mitchell and I will agree as to how things happen in the natural world, but we will probably differ as to why they happen. Science has shown that our universe bootstrapped its way from a simple soup of energy and fundamental particles 15 billion years ago to the huge complexity of today.
This sequence of developments could not have happened were the properties of matter and energy and the laws of physics even slightly different than they are. This striking coincidence has been noted by science and formalised into a principle called the anthropic principle.
The question arises then - was the basic fabric of the universe set up initially so as to allow subsequent developments to evolve under their own steam? Dr Mitchell and I will respond differently to this question. Both responses are legitimate. - Yours, etc,
Prof WILLIAM REVILLE,
Department of Biochemistry,
Univerty College Cork.
Madam, - Yet again William Reville must be reeling from the deluge of scorn that pours down on him from the militant wing of the science community every time he suggests there is more to life and the universe than science.
I cannot be the only reader of The Irish Times who believes there are more kinds of evidence in the world than those that can be measured by microscopes, mass spectrometers, geologists and evolutionary biologists. What branch of science, for example, can either prove or measure the love of a young child for his or her parents and vice versa? Yet what parent would deny that such love exists? - Yours, etc,
BRENDAN CONROY B.Sc.,
Mulvey Park,
Windy Arbour,
Dublin 14.