Philip Ball on Thermochimica Acta Paper

Shortly after Rogers published his finding, in Thermochimica Acta, Philip Ball wrote an opinion piece for Nature, the journal that had published the carbon dating results in 1989. Ball wrote:

The scientific study of the Turin Shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God. It does more to inflame any debate than settle it . . . . And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.

Ball’s assertion that it is not known how the image was made is correct. Scientists are not even close. There is no best explanation; not yet. There is no theory. Though there are some hypotheses, none seem to qualifies in terms of chemistry, physics and visual perception. The image remains inexplicable, baffling, downright weird. So far, even with the best of modern technology no one has been able to replicate it. We will explore it thoroughly. Its mysterious qualities are among the most entertaining and intriguing aspects of the shroud.

Skeptical Dictionary Position Softened

Robert Carroll’s Skeptics Dictionary has softened its once hardnosed refutation of the cloth’s authenticity since Thermochimica Acta published Rogers’ findings:

Of course, the cloth might be 3,000 or 2,000 years old, as Rogers speculates, but the image on the cloth could date from a much later period. No matter what date is correct for either the cloth or the image, the date cannot prove to any degree of reasonable probability that the cloth is the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that the image is somehow miraculous. To believe that will always be a matter of faith, not scientific proof.

First off, Rogers did not speculate that it was 3,000 or 2,000 years old. What Rogers argued was that the lack of vanillin in the fabric of the shroud was a serious challenge to the carbon dating. Given a plausible range of average ambient temperatures during the life of the cloth, chemical kinetics demonstrates that the cloth is somewhere between 1,300 and 3,000 years old and not about 700 years old as the carbon dating suggested. Second, we need not ascribe miraculous causation to the image, as Carroll suggests, to infer at some level of certainty that it might be the shroud Jesus was wrapped in. There might be, as Rogers and other think, a perfectly natural chemical explanation for the images. The suggestion that the image might be from a much later period is interesting but improbable. One historical claim in support of such an idea, as we will see, doesn’t stand up to objective history or scientific analysis. Carroll perhaps is right when he states that the date cannot prove that the cloth was Jesus’ burial shroud. We need not cut off the debate, as Carroll does, by proclaiming that belief in its authenticity is simply a matter of faith. Yes, scientific proof might not be possible yet or ever, but a combined conspectus of history and science may be enough to infer that authenticity is the best explanation.

Raymond Rogers to the Editor of Skeptical Inquirer

Letter from Ray Rogers to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer:

I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. . . . Joe [Nickell] did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.

New Mexicans for Science and Reason (NMSR)

Partial Statement of the organization

We are skeptical . . . of those groups who misuse and misrepresent science. We oppose the use of fabrication, flawed logic, distortion of facts, and pseudoscientific propaganda by any and all groups who twist science to suit their own ends, whether they are creationists, advocates of intelligent design, proponents of the idea that aliens crashed at Roswell, extreme academic cultural critics who deny objective reality, or promoters of unproved claims . . . NMSR is a science organization; it is not a civil liberties or an anti-religious organization. Several of our members, like scientists in general, belong to various religious groups. We see no inherent conflict between science and religion, in that science concerns the natural world (the one accessible to our senses and instruments), while religion concerns the possibility of a supernatural world accessible only through faith. While we respect and cherish religious freedom, we stand ready to challenge those who promote bad science to further their goals, religious or otherwise.

See Raymond Rogers, member

What was Teddy Hall’s Famous Quote on the Shroud of Turin

“We have shown the shroud to be a fake. Anyone who disagrees with us ought to belong to the Flat Earth Society.”

Teddy Hall, the director of Oxford’s Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art , following carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988. (Source:  Alan D. Whanger, Professor Emeritus, Duke University Medical Center)

Was it justified? Possibly, assuming that carbon dating is the absolute final answer. It was no longer justified one it was decisively shown that the carbon dating was invalid.