A chara, – Thank you for running David Robert Grimes’s balanced and unemotional statement of facts regarding science (“Better grasp of science would be a social boon”, Opinion & Analysis, July 10th). People are entitled to their religious and philosophical beliefs, but have no rights to impose them on others. Science is based on verifiable and demonstrable proofs, and merely states facts. Science tends not to stray into the realm of religion unless invited; perhaps religion could agree a similar approach in regards to trespass. – Is mise,
PAUL CULLEN,
Knockabawn,
Rush,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – According to David Robert Grimes, he is displeased with the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre’s questionable decision to include a creationist explanation alongside a scientific evolutionary explanation because of the absurd subjective beliefs of evangelical creationists compared to the utter objectivity of empirical scientists’ theories of evolution.
He asserts that people’s subjective worldview – how one interprets and perceives the world – applies exclusively to non-scientists. However, all people misleadingly believe in their own objectivity because we are each beholden to our personal and cultural biases or assumptions that unconsciously influence and determine how we interpret evidence.
All scientific facts are the result of human interpretation because “man always believes more readily that which he prefers” (Sir Francis Bacon) and “men believe willingly that which they desire” (Julius Caesar). The winner of the 1960 Noble Prize for medicine, Sir Peter Medawar, insightfully stated that in both science as well as the humanities “there is no such thing as an unprejudiced observation since every act of observation we make is biased”.
Mr Grimes hopes that we learn something from history so I commend the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre for providing contrasting and conflicting explanations because what one today may consider to be absurd subjective beliefs or theories could, in the future, potentially become scientifically validated explanations, such as occurred when Galileo in the 17th century “absurdly” claimed that the Earth moved around the Sun.
Whether one agrees with either the creationist or evolutionist explanation for the Giant’s Causeway, at least having both explanations enables active exposure to alternative perspectives. – Yours, etc,
MARK C NOLAN,
Model Farm Road,
Cork.