On the matter of proof, I caught the last thirty seconds of "Today" on Radio 4 this morning. I don't know who the interviewee was, but Jim Naughtie was asking him about the likelihood of a Loch Ness monster. The chap said that the evidence was strongly against, but he couldn't be certain. The only way to be sure one way or the other would be to drain Loch Ness and see what was on the bottom. I got to thinking about that. If the loch was drained and a monster was found and authenticated, that would definitely nail it. Almost. Men didn't land on the moon, the earth is flat and Elvis is still alive and working down the chippy, remember. In some people's deluded minds, reason would never win out. The outlandish always trumps the rational. But if nothing was found on the Loch bed it still wouldn't be PROOF that the monster didn't exist. It could have got washed up, died and been eaten by scavengers. It could have escaped out to sea. It could have fled up one of the rivers feeding the loch. The loch floor is a very large and complex place, difficult to search. All perfectly reasonable notions. In the realms of reason applied to evidence (science, in other words), this "proof" malarkey has no place. In maths maybe, but not science. But you can still bet your life that, before long, some Mudcat clown or other will be along to demand proof that God either does or doesn't exist.