Among the most exciting issues that face us as human beings today are such scientific questions as the origin of the universe as well as the origin of life and - at a very late stage in the universe's development - the emergence of our own human race as self-conscious beings.
Another such issue seems to me to be the existence of the mysterious world of fundamental particles - one where the normal relationship that we take for granted between observable physical objects simply does not exist, and where indeed what we call common sense completely breaks down. But this is also the world out of which everything we see around us is in fact mysteriously constructed.
I suppose I am in a minority in my preoccupation with such issues, despite my total lack of any abstract mathematical - as distinct from concrete arithmetic - skills. But I persist in believing that issues such as these should not be left as the preserve of scientists, but are of such huge significance to our human race that at least a nodding acquaintance with the existence of such questions should be included in what we call the humanities.
Of course, schoolchildren who study science at school will be aware of some at least of these issues. But I suspect that the majority of school students who do not take science as a school subject never come across any of them. And I find it curious, and indeed disturbing, that this should be the case: that most of the new generation who are currently emerging to play their part in the early stages of the new millennium may never even have been told of such crucial issues - ones that are fundamental to their own existence.
Of course, given my own mathematical and scientific illiteracy - if illiteracy is the correct term for it - I am not so foolish as to expect the majority of adults, let alone anything more than a minority of scientifically-oriented school students, to engage in detail with any of these complex aspects of science.
But that does not mean that it is right for most young people to grow up without ever even knowing that such issues exist. Surely, whether children do or don't study physics at school, the first generation of the 21st century should be encouraged at least to wonder about the age and immensity of the universe; about how, out of inert matter, life on earth succeeded in emerging and about how that life has now developed to the point where self-conscious human beings exist who have the capacity at least to know about and reflect on such matters.
Let me give just one example of an issue that almost anyone could benefit from being aware of, and reflecting upon - and one that I believe has the capacity to stimulate children to exercise their minds.
However little science most people know, a lot of people must by now be aware of the idea that our universe came into existence with what is described as a Big Bang thousands of millions of years ago. And many people must have wondered at least momentarily as to whether, and if so how, this universe could have emerged out of nothing.
But another and at least equally puzzling question arises out of that primal event - one of which many fewer people are, I think, aware. This is the fact that scientists are agreed that, far from the emergence of life in such a universe having been inevitable, it was in fact astronomically improbable that this universe would have any possibility of generating and sustaining life.
In relation to this astronomic improbability of our universe having any such capacity, let me quote four distinguished scientific authorities:
Stephen Hawking: "The laws of science . . . contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron . . . The remarkable thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life . . . It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life."
Prof George Wald, Nobel Prize in Biology: "Were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise . . . life, which now seems to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?"
Dr Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize in Physics: "The second 'improbable' feature of the early universe, almost as improbable as creation out of nothing, is an exquisitely delicate balance between matter and energy. third - and this one puzzles scientists almost as much as the first two - [is that] somehow all these pieces, each without having any contact with the others . . . must have appeared with the same balance between matter and energy at the same instant."
Prof Jay Roth, University of Connecticut: "There is so much in the physical nature of the universe we inhabit: the exact balances of everything needed to sustain life, the piling of coincidence on coincidence, every one of which is vital for the development of a stable star with a planet that can support life! Even the coincidences that must occur for this planet to have oceans with moderate temperatures over four billion years are highly unlikely."
Now the fact that, against such super-astronomical odds, our universe has in fact proved capable of generating and sustaining life is something that has driven scientists to one or other of what appear to be only two possible conclusions. Some of them, perhaps a minority, believe that if ours is in fact the only universe, it must have been designed for the purpose of supporting life.
Others, some perhaps unhappy with that potentially theistic hypothesis, have come to feel that the only alternative explanation for the existence of our life-bearing universe must be the existence of an infinite number of universes - because out of that infinite number one of them was bound to have turned out to have the unique set of characteristics that make the existence of life possible. And we just happen to be living in that particular and unique universe.
Surely an issue such as this is worth putting before children - all children, not just those studying science as one of their school subjects? And should children not also be encouraged to think about other similar issues, such as whether the universe could have been self-generated out of nothing?
Secondly, is it right that young people should grow up without knowing that the physical objects that they observe around them are not solid matter, but instead are composed of huge numbers of separate particles, which happen to be organised in such a way as to give an illusion of solidity - and that in certain circumstances these particles are capable of behaving in a manner contrary to common sense?
Should they not be told that it is inherently impossible to measure the position and momentum of an atom - because it has been established that the act of observation itself actually changes in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way that which is being measured.
Or am I all wrong in my belief that education should teach children that there are things they cannot know?