Natural logic
I would like to comment on Antonino Zichichi's "Viewpoint" on Intelligent Design (CERN Courier October 2009 p42).
Most scientists will not agree with the statement: "If a fundamental logic (of nature) exists then the author of this logic must exist too." Good science is, and can be, done by people of many different world views and/or religious beliefs. No one can claim that the present scientific knowledge "proves" his or her view with the implication that it "disproves" all the others.
Zichichi claims a "fundamental formal logic of nature" that "matter has to obey". According to the Oxford Dictionary of English the term "logic" signifies "reasoning according to strict principles of validity". I cannot see nature to reason in any way. Possibly the claim makes sense if it means a "formal structure of nature". Whether life and reason are part of such a formal structure is not proven. However, by an act of faith one can believe that the entire structure, formal or not, has been "intelligently designed" and logically implemented by a supreme being. Or not.
So far, physics has contributed little to explain life and reason and it is unlikely that any reductionist approach will ever contribute much. On the other hand, and contrary to Zichichi's statement, the theory of evolution, to which Darwin contributed so much, is the best scientific theory we have for all of biology. Not to grant it the qualification "scientific" is shortsighted.
Peter Schmid, Salzburg.