Steve Jones webchat 15 May 1-2pm

Here here. No poetry at all in modern versions, very plodding. No joy. They seem to have missed out all the "Sing to the Lord a glad song" element.

Never mind all this cant - how do I get on to a 'web-chat' next Wednesday please.? This clearly clever chap who has spent a good deal of time studying fruit flies has to be interesting to debate with - even if it is about God or No God - and even though there cannot be an answer to that question.....it should be very entertaining !

Just come to this thread, grumpygranny You can post questions in advance for Steve Jones. He will answer them when he turns up on Wednesday.

How do you reconcile Genesis account of the Creation taking place in six days with what we know now about evolution and the world developing over millions of years?

Just add your own bit of cant on here now grumpy. You can add some more cant while Mr Jones is answering, but it might not get included.

If you post it, it will appear, but no guarantee that anyone's question will be answered. Same with life, really.

Mrsmopp I would say that Genesis is an allegory for the process of creation written by people who didn't have the benefit of the scientific knowledge which we have today.

I admit to only having read the preface so far, but I was amused by the references to Noah Webster's 'bowdlerised' versions of the Bible, where, as you say, 'men have no stones and women have no teats.' Centuries later, the very practical Julian of Norwich cited the defecation process as an example of God's care for us: I imagine that Webster would have been quite shocked.
My question is, do you think that the world today would be very different if the Bible had not been so very disapproving of of sexuality and the body, and would your 'Scientific Bible' have a different view?

I like Grammar's allegory description. I do believe in God, but find it hard to believe that any reasonable God would expect people in the 21st century to be following hygiene rules, for instance, laid down before the birth of Christ.

I'm afraid I haven't read the book but I'd like to know what first motivated Steve to write it?

Is there a scientific explanation for the Book of Revelations?

"And yes, science does very often deal with things that are "very probably" true" - but surely that doesn't take you past the hypothesis stage...

What do you think about atheism becoming a religion in itself?

Oh and, would you attend an atheist church?

Hi Steve. What do you say to those who are skeptical of global warming?

Steve - what are your views on the "Out of Asia" theory as opposed to the "Out of Africa" consensus? Slightly off-piste question posed by my OH

Do you think rationalising the mystical in this book removes the sense of belief necessary to take solace in the bible's teaching? And so is your book a crutch to those skeptical individuals who still want to believe in the wider point about God and go to church etc?

Or; do you feel that removing belief in the fantastical precludes faith in the stories and so calls the whole doctrine of organised ancient text based religion into question? If we can't believe X, then why believe Y?

And to counter the comments about Jesus' two commandments: lots of people say clever things about how we should live. Perhaps explaining miracles etc precludes divinity though - and yes I agree, no reason not to follow the teaching.

Do you agree with the way religion is taught in schools?

Is concentrating on the bible justifiable from the standpoint of an atheist? Isn't it a version of prejudice to single out one form of belief? Would it be right for a Christian to pick apart the Koran?

And broadly speaking, you’re approach to religion comes across as a practicing-atheist. That is, an enlightened and preaching voice aimed toward the masses. Your angle is persuasive and you risk converting people to your line of thinking. To the reader you may be revelatory and they may begin questioning their deep seated and at times socially helpful belief. Was this your intention, and do you think your book is helpful to readers in this situation?

I have a couple of questions:
Given that the bible is mainly comprised of history, law, poetry, letters, and biography what basis have you for your assertion that the bible was the world’s first scientific textbook?
Today it's been raining cats and dogs in Devon where I live. In view of the way you dismiss metaphor can I take it that my last sentence is meaningless to you? Or is it only Christian metaphor that you consider to be meaningless?

I haven't read the book but it sounds very interesting and I'll try to order it from the library.

The history of humankind is full of people questioning accepted ideas and texts and I can see no reason why the Bible should not be explored in this way. I find it strange that Christians should feel so threatened by this. I wonder if they would approve of those Muslims who are similarly unwilling to explore and debate the meaning of their holy texts.

As many believers suggest that some incidents in the bible, such as the meaning/cause of the expulsion of Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden, the parting of the waves, the changing of water to wine, etc. etc., should not be taken literally but metaphorically, how are we to distinguish between the two?

Hi Steve, great to have you here.

Recently, there has been an argument in popular science that we possess genes for cooperation as much as for competitiveness.

Do you think the idea of the selfish gene is misleading?