Science, Shroud and Religion

The Jan. 19 article on the Shroud of Turin gives equal, if not greater, emphasis on “research” which indicates its authenticity than that which proves it to be fraudulent.

Example: “Some researchers say apparent blood on the shroud has been scientifically proven to be real. Others say it’s paint or pigment.” A simple DNA test would settle such a question; it has apparently been neglected.

“Most liberal Catholic and Protestant scholars see the shroud as a sort of pious forgery,” says a chairman of the religious studies department at Cal State Fullerton, certainly not a foe of religious belief. Carbon dating, accepted as a dependable source of information, proves that the material is not old enough to be authentic. Where was it until it was revealed 1,357 years later, in France?

I have, in my possession, a tablecloth on which guests left stains apparently picturing Moses parting the sea. I am willing to offer it for the shroud museum to add to its collection. Or perhaps just to the cleaners.

WILFRED COUZIN

Laguna Niguel

* What delicious irony that the article “Shrine for a Shroud” and Dana Parsons’ column, “From the Makers of the Big Bang, a Sequel: the Slow Burn,” would appear on the same page Jan. 19.

Being a follower of Jesus Christ, I find the Shroud of Turin a fascinating artifact. My faith, however, hinges not one iota on its authenticity.

It’s curious that some in mainstream academe are so threatened by its existence that they either dismiss it with derision and neglect, or dispense knee-jerk denunciations. Some scientists smugly maintain that it is a fraud because carbon dating “conclusively” pinpoints its origin to AD 1260-1390.

Parsons muses in his “slow burn universe” column that a couple of University of Michigan geniuses recently postulated that the universe will be a spent ember in 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion years . . . give or take hundreds of billions of years, or more.

Now, hold on a second! A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we’re talking some pretty large numbers! Which brings me to my point. How can some scientists shamelessly declare the shroud bogus, without conceding the potential for an error of a paltry thousand years or so, while their astrophysicist brethren are unabashedly allowing fudge factors in billions and trillions of years?

Isn’t research grand? Our unscientific predispositions are often allowed to rage as we maneuver our “scientific data” to confirm them.

JIM CARNETT

Costa Mesa

* I was disappointed to read that Parsons’ “plea is for a bit more practicality” in the astrophysicists’ chosen field of study.

It angers me to read a critique of the scientific community written and published by a person who has no basic understanding of how the scientific community functions.

The maintenance and dissemination of such ignorance should be admonished.

J.J. STEWART

Laguna Niguel