Giant controversy resolved?

PM David Cameron at Giant's Causeway
(Image: National Trust/Harrison)

This Summer, the Giants Causeway visitor centre in Co. Antrim re-opened after an £18.5 million rebuild. However the National Trust, who run the facility were forced to defend some of the information presented in the visitor's centre after severe criticism from scientists.

An audio component of the interactive exhibition seemed to suggest that the National Trust was supportive (or at least sitting on the fence) regarding the notion that the Earth could have been formed 6,000 years ago. This was denied by the Trust in a series of statements at the time.

Even scientist and TV presenter Brian Cox has waded into the argument, tweeting: "to suggest there is any debate that Earth is 4.54 billion years old is pure shit".

For more on the original story, see my post.

Now, following a review of the section of the exhibition in question, the National Trust have re-recorded the end of the piece to "clear up any misunderstanding there may have been", according to Graham Thompson, Project Director for the Giant's Causeway.

"The National Trust only endorses the scientific explanation of the origins of the stones yet recognises that others have alternative beliefs", said Mr. Thompson.

You can read the transcripts of the original and new versions of the passage below (click to view a larger version).

A Giant Controversy

Finn McCool and Benandonner fight it out on the Giants Causeway (Image: National Trust)

The new Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre will make reference to creationism as an alternative viewpoint on how the geological feature was formed.

The centre, which cost £18.5 million to build, opened on July 3rd after a rebuild necessitated after a fire destroyed the old centre. However, the National Trust has had to issue a statement [pdf] regarding the information presented at the centre and to confirm that the trust is "entirely unequivocal in its acceptance of scientific consensus".

The National Trust issued their statement after criticism of the new educational tours and a statement from a Northern Ireland creationist organisation welcoming the National Trust's acknowledgement "both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and the ongoing debate around this".

The Caleb Foundation said that it had engaged with the National Trust "over many months" on the issue. However, the National Trust statement was clear: "All of the information presented to visitors in relation to how the Giant’s Causeway was formed, and how old it is, clearly reflects scientific consensus that the Causeway stones were formed 60 million years ago".

A National Trust spokesperson said: "We reflect, in a small part of the exhibition, that the Causeway played a role in the historic debate about the formation of the earth, and that some people hold views today which are different from scientific consensus. However, the National Trust is entirely unequivocal in its acceptance of scientific consensus".

The Caleb Foundation would seem to have form for this sort of thing. According to their website, they led a campaign in 2010 to get the then NI Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Nelson McCausland to change the Ulster Museum's 'Nature Zone' to reflect creationist ideas and to remove what it called "wholly misleading propaganda" regarding evolution. In a letter to the Minister, the group noted: "the very clear assertion is made across the entire "Nature Zone", that evolution is a fact. This gross and arrogant falsehood is further compounded by the complete absence of even the merest mention of any other theory of origins such as the Biblical account of creation."

A Press Association report says that the interactive exhibition in question at the Causeway includes an audio package in which historic figures debate the origin of the basalt columns. The end of the package includes:

"This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
"Young earth creationists believe that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis.
"Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.
"Young earth creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant's Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it."

The National Trust has attempted to further explain their position on their press office blog.

This is all a very interesting debate. The Caleb Foundation seems to be using Northern Ireland's disturbed past to argue for equality for all points of view. Regarding its Ulster Museum campaign, the group said: "If Northern Ireland is to move towards a shared future on a genuine basis of equality and inclusivity, then it is only right that a publicly funded institution such as the Ulster Museum is fully and sensitively reflective of the various views of society as a whole - including those of evangelical Christians."

The new Giants Causeway Visitor Centre (Image: National Trust)

In reality though, all viewpoints on all topics are not equal and should not require representation, particularly in a scientific and educational setting. Even TV presenter Brian Cox has waded into the argument, tweeting: "to suggest there is any debate that Earth is 4.54 billion years old is pure shit".

The fact is, the arguments of the Caleb Foundation and other 'Young Earth' Creationist advocates have been disproved for years. For example, scientifically informed and enlightened Christians have accepted evolution as fact for a long time. Even the Vatican and the current Pope has accepted evolution as scientific fact and argued that evolution did not exclude a faith in God.

For the NI government and the National Trust to pander to these notions espoused by creationists is disappointing. The Trust seems to argue that mentioning the supposed ongoing debate will do no harm given their commitment to the scientific explanation of how the causeway was formed. Perhaps not - the Irish myth that the 40,000 basalt columns were constructed by legendary hero Finn MacCool also finds a place in the visitor centre. However, nobody is arguing for Finn MacCool to find a place on the science curriculum.

UPDATE 18/07/2012: A spokesperson for the National Trust has said that "having listened to our members' comments and concerns, we feel that clarity is needed...To ensure that no further misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this exhibit can occur, we have decided to review the interpretive materials in this section.”

The Modest Man

Last Saturday was Heritage Open Day in Cork City and I was lucky enough to visit the recently renovated Triskel Christchurch.

The former church, in the heart of medieval Cork, has been re-imagined as a space for art in the City while maintaining much of its architectural heritage.

One such piece which is interesting from our perspective is the wonderful tombstone known as "The Modest Man" housed in the foyer. The gravestone originally covered the tomb of former Cork mayor Thomas Ronan, who died in 1554. It probably formed part of an earlier church on the site.

The limestone sculpture depicts a skeleton in a shroud, tied at the top and bottom. Three inscriptions on the stone are translated as:

"In this tomb is covered the body of the gracious gentleman Thomas Rona, formerly Mayor of this City of Cork, who died on the day after Saint Jambert's Day (13 August) in the year of our Lord 1554."

"With whom there also wises to be buried his wife Joan Tyrry, who died on the 1sy December in the year of our Lord 1569: on whose soul may God have mercy. Amen. Pater, Ave and Credo. De profundis."

"Man, be mindful, since Death does not tarry: for when he dies, you will inherit serpents and beasts worms."

What's interesting from a scientific point of view is summarised by Dalton:
"The sculptor knew but little of the human frame, as is evident from the lower joints of the legs and arms, and his having cut 14 ribs at one side and 12 on the other".

For all its inaccuracy, it is wonderful to see this historic stone back on public display. It's intriguing to think of the craftsman who carved the stone. He produced perfect gothic script but fell down on his anatomy skills. Odd since he clearly made a living working around dead bodies!

No reason for Science vs. Religion posturing

During Pope Benedict’s recent visit to Britain, relations between science and religion have been brought into focus.

Speaking at St. Mary's University College in London on the second day of his visit, the pontiff addressed 4,000 students: "Never allow yourselves to become narrow. The world needs good scientists, but a scientific outlook becomes dangerously narrow if it ignores the religious or ethical dimension of life, just as religion becomes narrow if it rejects the legitimate contribution of science to our understanding of the world."

These words will be seen by some as an olive branch to a vocal community of scientists and sceptics who have opposed this visit.(contd...)

Read the rest of this post here in the Euroscientist, the official publication of the Euroscience organisation. It publishes articles on a variety of topics based on science and science policy.

Man does not live on bread alone...

Examination of paintings of the Last Supper have shown that portion size has increased dramatically over the years.



"If art imitates life and if food portions have been generally increasing with time, we might expect this trend to be reflected in paintings that depict food" according to Brian and Craig Wansink, the former a economist and the later a theologian.


Writing in the International Journal of Obesity, the academics compared the "food-to-head ratio" in 52 of the best known depictions of the Last Supper. In 18% of the paintings, the attendees were depicting as enjoying fish as their main dish. Lamb (14%) and pork (7%) were also recorded with 46% of the paintings having no discernable main dish.


The authors showed a significant positive relationship between the relative size of that main dish and the passage of time from 1000 BC - 2000 BC. This means that as time progressed, portion size got larger.


"The last thousand years have witnessed dramatic increases in the production, availability, safety, abundance and affordability of food. We think that as art imitates life, these changes have been reflected in paintings of history's most famous dinner", said co-author Brian Wansink.