Proof God Exists

“I Know God Exists”

Suppose someone makes a statement: “I can prove the existence of God?”  One of the first things to do before embarking on such a voyage as this might prove to be is to decide on the terms used in the statement.

What, for instance, do we mean by the word “proof’? It may not be difficult to understand what the word means, but as Descartes quickly realized, it certainly is quite an elusive thing. Rene Descartes (1596 –1650),an important early philosopher, scientist and mathematician, wanted to find out how we arrive at certainty of knowledge. His idea entailed systematically doubting everything he thought he knew, drilling down as it were until he could arrive at a starting point for knowledge which he could not doubt.

Rene Descartes

“Knowledge” may be defined in simple terms as facts about real states of affairs, facts about reality. At this point we might distinguish knowledge from belief. I might know the sun is shining right now where I am, but tomorrow I believe it will rain. Knowledge involves the concept of certainty. Knowledge must be true, it is not enough to merely think something is true and claim that as knowledge. We cannot claim to know of a square circle. Since a circle is defined by its circularity and a square by its straight lines they are mutually exclusive. In regard to certainty, Descartes is most famous for the statement: “cogito ergo sum”, in popular terms, “I think, therefore I am”

Rene Descartes: “I noticed that while I was trying to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth, "I am thinking, therefore I exist "[cogito ergo sum] was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I decided that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of philosophy I was seeking”


For Descartes then, the Cogito is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he worked to restore his beliefs. He related this to the idea Archimedes expressed. “Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable.”


Why was Descartes taking such pains to arrive at certainty? Descartes appreciated the value of knowledge, he also understood that often things were claimed to be “known” when in reality this was not the case. For example in the ancient world it was “known” that we lived in a system that involved planets, the moon and the sun, and earth was the center around which these heavenly bodies revolved.

The Ptolemaic System with earth as center.

Eventually this geo-centric system was replaced by the Copernican heliocentric system which correctly observes the sun as the center of our solar system. This is often regarded as the event defining the scientific revolution; Descartes also played a strong part in this movement. There were a number of natural philosophers whose interchange of ideas was responsible for the empirical method which underpins what we now know as the scientific method of today. This period marked an era of momentous upheaval in the world of ideas; everything was being questioned and queried with a rigor previously unheard of. It was no longer acceptable to put faith in appearances and basic observations. Perhaps finally the world was taking notice of words spoken some 1600 years prior when Jesus said: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

Just a few years before Descartes was born the geocentric system which had held sway for 1400 years was displaced by the heliocentric system. Perhaps when Descartes considered how long a time that an erroneous idea had misled people this became a catalyst for his own drive towards certainty.

This then raises several questions:

• What shall we hold as an acceptable level of proof for the proposition in question?
• What level of certainty do we require before we would believe the proposition “God exists”? 

• Is there a general level of certainty that might be acceptable for a statement to pass from: “I believe God exists” to the more assertive, “I know God exists”?
•  But first perhaps let us ask- What would be an unacceptably high requirement for certainty?
• Is it possible to be unreasonable in our quest for certainty? 
• If the level of certainty demanded was not consistent with the question, would it not show the level of bias against the proposition? 

The requirements differ according to circumstance. We prioritize the level of certainty necessary according to our appraisal of the risk. We do not require a certificate of compliance to be attached to a chair before we sit on it, but we do have systems in place so that before we take a car on the road we are reasonably certain it is safe to drive. I think this is a valid question given today’s skeptical climate. There are philosophers (taking Descartes to extremes) that have written about the impossibility of true knowledge, about the impossibility of knowing anything for certain, and- writing volumes- they will tell you in no uncertain terms! How some people can expend such laborious efforts to pass on the knowledge that you cannot know is beyond me! It seems to me that to say that the only thing you can know for sure is that we cannot know for sure- is bordering on naiveté. Surely at some point this extreme reduces to absurdity.  At this my mind conjures up a scene from Dad’s Army as Captain Mainwaring would say “Getting into the realms of fantasy Jones!”    (“Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". Wikipedia, emphasis mine)

Subjectivism

Some people have even embarked on a way of life that takes subjectivism to such an extreme, as to believe that ones own mind is the only reality and everything else including other minds, yours and mine, are actually imaginary!

Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.( Wikipedia)
Such a person is a solipsist.  As a metaphysical position, solipsism concludes that the world and other minds do not exist. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga recounts an amusing story- at a University where he worked the resident Professor of Surgery was a solipsist. After spending an amiable few minutes speaking with him Plantinga left to carry on about his business. One of the surgery interns quietly pulled him aside and said "You know we take good care of our Professor, after all- once he goes we all go..."


But why should reality be viewed this way? If this extreme subjectivism were so in an absolute sense then wouldn’t that count as some sort of conspiracy of fact? Wouldn’t it make even the skeptic suspicious that some design was at hand? This extreme skepticism is used in thought experiments where we have the idea of a brain in a vat kept alive through immersion in nutrients and all sorts of electrodes on the brain connected to a master computer which creates a virtual reality completely immune to the real world. In such a state he or she cannot know whether most of his or her beliefs might be completely false. If each of us were indeed brains in vats then this "truth"skepticism of reality would be more likely to encourage people to believe in God than deny him, after all no one could deny a master plan and a design and on such a scale it could only be God.

Again Jesus has something to say on the issue of credibility which put the religious leaders of the day on the horns of a dilemma:

“And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”. Luke 16:31

Here the religious leaders of his day were confronted with their bias against him through the story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man. They were given evidence of Jesus’ true identity from their own sources of authority (The Law and the Prophets) and Jesus made the point that if they are going to be inconsistent enough even to deny what they considered on other points to be authoritatively true; they wouldn't hesitate to deny the evidence of a resurrection. I guess Jesus would know!

He points out that if they- under normal circumstances- accept what their senses tell them as reliable and  as capable of presenting things as real states of affairs why suddenly did they deny their senses when presented with the reality of his resurrection. The answer lies in the motive and the heart of those who deny the reality. Even if- on a conscious level- they sincerely believed in the impossibility of a resurrection, the real reason lies on another level where the implications of believing it become life changing and too costly to contemplate. After all these religious leaders were not skeptical about the existence of God, then what is such a problem with resurrection?

Suppressing the evidence.

So here we see that for one who is determined enough- no amount of evidence will do. So it becomes a point of the willful suppression of evidence. And for many that may mean unconscious suppression of it. George Macdonald, in The Curate's Awakening, warned:

"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not, is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation."

What we find then is a situation in which all of mankind have an axe to grind, with the regard to the question of God there is in fact no neutrality.

Suppose one wanted to know objective truth about human nature and certain relations to that nature, how would anyone speak with authority on this subject? After all if you are conferring with an expert who is subject to that nature (and of course all humans are) then surely everyone is- accordingly like the definition of a foolish doctor. This doctor, the introspective,  self-diagnosing doctor, it is said,who has a fool for a patient!

“The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.”

The Myth of Neutralty.

So atheists who talk about open mindedness and objectivity are already compromised, and are not disinterested, unbiased or neutral about the existence of God, and to take up their ground from which to work from as a common basis for apologetics is to lose ground and court failure.

So if this scenario demonstrates the unreliable witness of all humanity about humanity and certain relations to that nature- while not proving a fallacy certainly undermines human witness to any truth with regard to the question of God.

Perhaps we can see from this why the scripture says: “Let God be true but every man a liar”

We are all human prior to being experts. I no doubt have said this before but I take such delight in it I cannot refrain: 

“A man cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.” Anon.

Theologians, philosophers and scientists have this in common, they are all in the pursuit of truth, it’s just that where they seek it and the type of truth they seek is, (at least on the face of it) different. But, and I feel this is important to remember; they are all human before they are theologians, philosophers and scientists (and of course so are we!)  The pertinent question to ask then is: From the perspective as a whole do we have an axe to grind?

Is there possibly a universal human motive for not recognizing the existence of God? 

And, of course- there is! Not the least of which is the fact that if God exists then it is most likely true that all that we are, all that we have, all that we do, all that we enjoy, every breath that we take- we are indebted to this God for.  We owe him- big time and what have we done about it?

Now whether or not everyone has consciously worked through the advantages of being our own man, as convicted mass murderer Timothy McVeigh said “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul” it makes little difference. In the secret places of our own heart everyone has enjoyed the sweet, delectable enticement and seduction of self will. From an innocent child’s earliest conscious moment when the suckling recognized its independence from its mother and refused to feed- its little mouth firmly shut, to the wizened, frail frame of megalomaniac exemplified in Joseph Stalin- raising himself up off his deathbed to shake a craggy fist at God moments before he passed from this world, we glory in being our own.  

Mankind is the Measure: Kant.

When that subtle beast of the field in that ancient garden whispered: “Yea hath God said…” The unmistakable invitation was for the woman to make up her own mind, to be her own person, to listen to the counsel of her own heart. To look no higher for authority than the authority of her own autonomous mind, and this sentiment possibly took its self referential authority strongest and most self-consciously through the philosophy of Kant. 

"To Kant, the human mind must be autonomous, subject only to its own law. Kant radically rejected the idea of authoritative revelation from God (either in nature or in Scripture) and asserted, perhaps more clearly than ever before (although this had always been the view of secular philosophers), the autonomy of the human mind. The human mind, that means, is to be its own supreme authority, its own criterion of truth and right."

"Kant’s philosophy explicitly presupposes human autonomy. It adopts human autonomy as the root idea to which every other idea must conform."

It was the brilliant Blaise Pascal, French Mathematician, Philosopher and Physicist (1623- 1662), author of The Pensees, creator of the first mechanical computer and Christian mystic who said:

“The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.”

The Bible is not silent on this issue:

 “because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be”

Consciously or not we have an axe to grind.

  Someone once wrote about the twin dangers of an extreme skepticism and its opposite of being extremely gullible, saying to the effect:

If we refuse to open our mouth and accept anything offered, we shall soon die of starvation, alternatively if we open our mouth so wide as to accept everything we shall soon choke!

G.K. Chesterton.

G.K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936) in his book “Orthodoxy” gives a humorous but honest definition of the insanity of both extreme skepticism and an extremely materialistic view of reality, (In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena [including consciousness] are the result of material interactions. Wikipedia)

G.K. Chesterton:

“There is a skeptic far more terrible than he who believes that everything began in matter. It is possible to meet the skeptic who believes that everything began in himself. He doubts not the existence of angels or devils, but the existence of men and cows. For him his own friends are a mythology made up by himself. He created his own father and his own mother. This horrible fancy has in it something decidedly attractive to the somewhat mystical egoism of our day. That publisher who thought that men would get on if they believed in themselves, those seekers after the Superman who are always looking for him in the looking-glass, those writers who talk about impressing their personalities instead of creating life for the world, all these people have really only an inch between them and this awful emptiness.

Then when this kindly world all round the man has been blackened out like a lie; when friends fade into ghosts, and the foundations of the world fail; then when the man, believing in nothing and in no man, is alone in his own nightmare, then the great individualistic motto shall be written over him in avenging irony. The stars will be only dots in the blackness of his own brain; his mother's face will be only a sketch from his own insane pencil on the walls of his cell. But over his cell shall be written, with dreadful truth, "He believes in himself."

All that concerns us here, however, is to note that this panegoistic extreme of thought exhibits the same paradox as the other extreme of materialism. It is equally complete in theory and equally crippling in practice. For the sake of simplicity, it is easier to state the notion by saying that a man can believe that he is always in a dream. Now, obviously there can be no positive proof given to him that he is not in a dream, for the simple reason that no proof can be offered that might not be offered in a dream. But if the man began to burn down London and say that his housekeeper would soon call him to breakfast, we should take him and put him with other logicians in a place which has often been alluded to in the course of this chapter.

The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth.”

• What shall we hold as an acceptable level of proof for the proposition in question? 

• What level of certainty do we require before we would believe the proposition “God exists”? 

There indubitably will be differences in what an acceptable level of proof would look like, depending on which side of the fence one sits. Or, as an agnostic might contend, depending on which side of the fence or whether one is sitting on the fence. To some it is a question of no consequence and will engender very little interest, to another it may be as serious as a life and death situation. Given that a stricter level of substantiation will satisfy people at all levels, what forms of investigation are available that satisfy rigorous examination? I propose that there are two commonly used systems and that both may be used with a high level of confidence.

When life or death is literally decided upon in investigations we invariably turn to the law courts for an official verdict. So the legal form of corroboration is one, the other is the scientific investigation based on the empirical method. When it is undertaken to send a man to the moon his life and death is largely in the hands of scientists. So these two powerful forms of enquiry are no doubt useful in the quest for deciding if the existence of God has a valid claim on knowledge. Various facets of an investigation might lend themselves to a scientific enquiry while others the judicial style would suit better.

Just as -Descartes realized- a great deal of what we generally accepted as “knowledge” was, under strenuous examination, seen to be explicable in terms of “belief” and not really knowledge- so too we have to understand that these conditions exist in both the scientific and legal communities. We shall have to take a look at the weaknesses of these forms of corroboration. Generally in law the criterion of understanding something to be true is put “beyond reasonable doubt”. In science some might offer the view that the criteria for deciding truth is much higher, that indeed before some fact has passed the bar of scientific judgment elevating its status from hypothesis to “knowledge”, it has to pass through a gauntlet of rigorous reasoning and logical certainty at every step. This is not so.

While it is true that scientific enquiry is thorough, it is far from logical certainty. By “logical certainty” I mean the same sort of certainty that we envisage when we say “1+1=2”.  This fact was made apparent during the aforementioned scientific revolution. And there are historical instances as well as methodological reasons that we can turn to, to illustrate this point.

Science as Logical Certainty: Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn, a scientist in his own right and a historian of science and contributing to the philosophy of science wrote “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” challenging the long held idea that science advanced at more or less a uniform rate each generation building on the shoulders of what had preceded.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this of him: “His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions…. While acknowledging the importance of Kuhn's ideas, the philosophical reception was nonetheless hostile…Since the following of rules (of logic, of scientific method, etc.) was regarded as the sine qua non of rationality, Kuhn's claim that scientists do not employ rules in reaching their decisions appeared tantamount to the claim that science is irrational.” Kuhn contended that science (and there is no need to believe that this is not also true of other disciplines) suffers from a kind of mental inertia or resistance to change. Once a theory has gained a widespread following and acceptance amongst scientists any challenge to its “orthodoxy” is met with hostile resistance and incredulity and it is only as the prevailing paradigm is weakened by the death and attrition of its adherents that a new paradigm arises like a phoenix as it were from the ashes of the old regime. In accord with Kuhn the constant use of induction (to which we shall soon turn) in the scientific enterprise also undermines the populist image of science as being the only purely rational discipline as historian and theologian N.T Wright points out:

“Current accounts of knowing have placed the would-be objective scientific knowing (test-tube epistemology, if you like) in a position of privilege.[another name for bias] Every step away from this is seen as a step into obscurity, fuzziness and subjectivism, reaching its peaks in aesthetics and metaphysics. "The Challenge of Jesus"

Thomas Kuhn:

“Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full 'objectivity' - we must account for subjective perspectives as well” 

It was precisely because of the recognition of subjectivity and personal bias that the scientific method developed, nevertheless it continues to exist and is not always recognized or calibrated for as we shall see shortly in one of history’s most infamous examples.

It is clear the subjective element of anyone’s observations must be allowed for in consideration of any scientific enterprise (or, for that matter any endeavor related to truth or reality such as philosophy and faith).

As Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has said

“It would be excessively naive to think that contemporary science is religiously and theologically neutral, standing serenely above this battle and wholly irrelevant to it.”

 (For further discussion re. the bias of secular world view see: Why do the pieces fit? Neutrino News & Neutrality)

One of the popular champions of Science today and author of best seller “The God Delusion” is the outspoken atheist Prof. Richard Dawkins.

In their book “The Dawkins Delusion”, Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt- McGrath offer a counter-perspective to Dawkins’ popular book and its attendant claim that religion is largely the result of wish fulfillment. In fact they point out that cognitive dissonance is a double edged sword:

‘Cognitive bias’ is indeed a fundamental characteristic of human psychology’ Yet in general this unconscious bias is manifested not so much in our believing what we would like to be true as in maintaining the status quo of our beliefs. The driving force is not wishful thinking but conservative thinking- that is, thinking that conserves an existing worldview. For example, many people have a positive view of themselves, a sense that the universe is benevolent and that other people like them. They maintain this view by attending to data that fits this view and minimizing that which does not. Others (such as depressed or traumatized people) see themselves as worthless, view the universes as malevolent and think others are out to get them. Once more, they discount or minimize the significance of any data that does not fit in with this view. We thus have a built in resistance to change our position- a resistance that is underpinned by cognitive biases that predispose us to fail to notice or to discount data that are inconsistent with our view. On the whole we do this because it is efficient- it takes effort and is upsetting to have to change one’s mind- even if the change is in a positive direction.'

This underlying resistance to change has been known for centuries as the reformer Martin Luther records:

"Learn from me how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the example of all the world, and which through long habit have become a second nature to us."  

A well known expression such as “turning the tide of opinion” gives a cogent example of this inertial resistance to change spoken of not just in terms of the individual but also on a societal level. In summary then, cognitive bias does not occur in the sole domain of religion but is just as common in the scientific arena. Nor is science the sole domain of rigorous examination- philosophy and theology also practise a most meticulous search for truth and as Luther experienced, students of theology also suffer from cognitive bias.

The Einstein Gaff: Gerald L. Schroeder.

Recently, thanks to neurological research of the human brain, we now have physical evidence to suppose that consistent, habitual ways of thinking actually change the brains structure and how it performs. It creates neurological pathways that reinforce this habitual way of thinking  It has been likened to rain washing down a hillside. At first the rain takes the path of least resistance but after continual washing this accustomed pathway becomes a deep rut that cuts its way deeper and deeper until there is less and less likelihood of change possible if nothing else changes. Thankfully the same research shows that though this is true, real change is possible but the deeper the rut the more effort required.

We now turn to perhaps the most famous example of cognitive bias in the recent past of science alluded to earlier. Gerald Schroeder is an applied physicist and an applied theologian who received his undergraduate and doctoral degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In his excellent book “Genesis and the Big Bang” Schroeder recounts the ridicule and disbelief that renowned scientists suffered at the outset because they challenged deeply held ideas. He describes several historic blunders by scientists and other critics with regard to pioneering scientists and then describes a faux pas by a scientist in his own thinking- focusing in particular on the worlds most celebrated physicist- Albert Einstein:

Gerald L. Schroeder- Genesis And The Big Bang- The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible

“AN IMPORTANT LESSON FROM HISTORY

In a sense astrophysics is part of the supersearch for a Creator. As you might expect, astrophysics and biblical scholarship are on the same team, only not all those involved in the search realize this. And that is why both theologian and scientist must beware of subjectively filtering the data gathered in this search. At times the temptation is to use only the agreeable information and neglect those data that seem to contradict a preconceived notion of the truth.

Johannes Kepler succeeded in deducing that the planets revolve around the Sun in elliptical orbits and not circles , because he had the courage to use data that contradicted the generally held concept that all orbits were purely circular.

Newton stated that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. This was [in then-current physics] blatantly ridiculous. Not only did it contradict Aristotle’s notion that the natural state of all objects is rest, but it also contradicted human experience. Rolling balls always eventually stop rolling.

Think of the professional and social pressure these scientists must have felt to adhere to the prevailing opinions. The psychological strain placed on people with unpopular theories is immense. Consider the following: In 1906 Ludwig Boltzmann, one of the founders of statistical mechanics, committed suicide. One of the causes of this tragic event was the intense philosophical opposition to his work, which now forms an integral part of physics. Not every scientist can withstand the force of that which is accepted as the current truth.

During the accumulation of the data that led to the widespread acceptance of the Standard Model of the universe there occurred an interesting lesson in nonobjectivity by the greatest of scientists. Albert Einstein completed his famous and complex general theory of relativity in 1915. Almost immediately he attempted to solve the relativistic equations to gain a description of the space-time physics of the entire universe. At that time, the current cosmology considered the universe to be isotropic and without expansion. Doppler shifts had not yet been measured in light emitted by galaxies distant from the Milky Way. Einstein’s solutions of his general theory, published in 1917, correctly revealed a universe with expansion but such a concept was not in vogue at the time. Relying on the then–current cosmology, Einstein introduced “a cosmological constant” into his equations. In so doing, he forced his relativistc equations to describe a universe without expansion. Years later, Einstein considered this one of the worst errors of his professional life.

The cosmological constant was no more than what a college freshman would call a “fudge factor”, a totally subjective modification of the objective solution he was seeking. It forced his equations to give the desired answer. Five years later the mathematician Alexander Friedmann resolved Einstein’s equations omitting the fudge factor. The solutions Friedmann obtained revealed a universe in expansion.”

The same unfortunate universal facet of human nature can be seen also in events surrounding the most recent discovery of quasi-symmetry which can be seen here. 

“Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

When one considers perhaps the most distinguished scientist of all time, or at the least the most distinguished of our time made such an error of judgement as to force his calculations to fit the currently accepted view, we begin to appreciate the psychological implications of cognitive bias. If it seems reasonable to postulate that those scientists who are most successful at what they do, and surely Einstein was one of those, are also the same scientists that are most careful about not deceiving themselves (which of course would be detrimental to their level of success) one must ask: What is the underlying stimulus behind this apparent slip in intellectual honesty?

Aside from the motivation of conserving the status quo with regard to cosmology, what other conscious or unconscious implications might have swayed Einstein against his better judgement? When a scientist goes to work he is definitely not out merely to preserve the status quo, why bother researching what we already presume to know? No, a scientist is inspired by the thought of discovering something new, something no one else might have imagined. As someone once commented:

“Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought”.

It is interesting that the subject of Cosmology, as Schroeder alluded to above is “part of the supersearch for a Creator”.

Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny: Ravi Zacharias.

Well known Christian apologist, author and evangelist Ravi Zacharias says that “a coherent worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer four questions: that of origin, meaning of life, morality and destiny”. One can readily see that astrophysics is not the concern of science alone, but where it touches on the idea of origins it becomes one of the essential concerns for all of humanity and I am sure this implication was not lost on Einstein. The answer to the question of origins has occupied countless minds over many centuries of history and we must attribute much of this intense searching to the broader philosophical questions that involve every human being. Why am I here? What is our purpose?  In seeking to answer what motivated Einstein to introduce his fudge factor to conserve the widely accepted view of a static universe it is well to ask what might be the moral implications of a paradigm shift of major proportions such as that which his theory would cause once the truth of his forced constant became apparent. Scientists, even the best of them have their biases. 

To be continued....Watch this Space!

Put in the section on DNA Stop Press: in the Northern Advocate Jan 25 2013 is this interesting little gem:  UNITED STATES: Scientists have recorded data including Shakespearean sonnets and an MP3 file on strands on DNA, in a breakthrough which could see millions of records. stored on a handful of molecules rather than computer drives.