Steve Jones webchat 15 May 1-2pm

firenze

As we understand more about genes, do you think we will come to view the achievements of great athletes as less amazing - just a question of genetic luck rather than something quasi-miraculous?

(perhaps we could pay footballers a bit less, especially the lazy ones!)

Again, there's a lot coming out about genes and sport (and there's plenty on the subject in the book). Quite how athletics will cope I do not know - will they handicap the best players? (they already do in golf, albeit not on genetic grounds). It's an interesting question!

The preface is the only bit worth reading.

Yes, Julian of Norwich is refreshingly frank, although I do not quite follow his logic. I do think the world would be very different (and quite possibly worse) without the Bible (particularly the New Testament), and many religions have given rise to societies far more vicious and sexually unequal than Christianity. My own hope is that, without referring to an imagined deity, we can in the modern world construct a fairer society than the one we now have: our fate is in our own hands.

Clytie

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?

Cheese

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

You are (dead) wrong!

getmehrt

We hear a lot about the ageing population. Do you foresee a time when the manipulation of genes could allow us to live much longer still?

Sadly, no: there have been extraordinary increases in life expectancy over recent years, and they show no signs of slowing down - in Britain, for example, life expectancy is goint up at six hours a day, every day, and has done for the past century. However, that has nothing to do with genes, and my own feeling is that we have more or less run out of road. however, its a remarkable fact that, on these figures, half the babies born between 2000 and 2013 will see the year 2100.

moomin

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

I go with Africa for modern humans (the evidence is overwhelming), but some of our earlier relatives may indeed have evolved in Asia.

muddyboots

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

Do you agree with the way religion is taught in schools?[/quote]

Not really; obviously religion should be taught as it is part of culture, and kids should know about more than one of them. However, as more and more faith schools emerged, different children are being taught different versions of what the Real Truth is all about - and that is not teaching, but indoctrination. It depresses me, and I wish that we had secular schools.

batgran

What is your view of the mania for searching for ancestors? After a few generations, don't our family trees branch so much that following one line or another becomes virtually meaningless?

Yes you are right; I have never had much interest in searching out my own (perhaps because I am called Jones). The first chapter of the book is about exactly this issue - the shortage of ancestors - and you may be interested to know that, more than likely, you and I are something like sixth cousins, who shared a common ancestor who lived as recently as the nineteenth century.

topshot

What made you want to write this book?

And how has it been received by believers?

And is the Bible really the right starting point for what you're writing about - which seems, from what I've seen of it, to be about rather more than that?

Well, the great Dr Johnson once said that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money", and that's part of the answer. However, I have always been interested in the Bible as a piece of literature (perhaps because of my Welsh Presbyterian upbringing) and I was glad to be able to explore it as an early form of science as well.

grannyactivist

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 notice that you use the word "mainly", and you are right. However there are many factual questions raised therein - the origin of the universe, of life, of sex; the nature of disease, the issue of inborn fate and what to do about it, together with accounts of visions and marvels that almost beg for a scientific explanation. That's what the book is about.

closetgran

Welcome Steve. I know genetics is a thrilling science but I worry about the way it has been used by biological determinists who argue for the status quo - genetics has been used to 'explain' why men are more promiscuous, why women need to please men - yeah, yeah.

Do you worry that a science so much in its infancy is often misrepresented?

I 100% agree with you. The four letters of the genetic code - A G C T - should be renamed as H Y P E; there have been gross exaggerations of what genetics can, and cannot, say about ourselves. And, oddly enough, in 2013 at least we are beginning to understand how little we know about that science.

StrangerOnTheBus

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 am indeed an atheist, but my intention was not to turn myself into a version of the Blessed Dawkins. I try as hard as I can not to insult religion (and I wish that some among the faithful would do the same for science); and it's worth remembering that there are plenty of great scientists who are religious (although most are not). It's a science book, not a philosophy one!

Eloethan

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?

I agree; an enormous part of the Bible message is metaphor. What I find odd, though, is that many believers think that ALL of it is metaphor, which is strange given that there is plenty of physical evidence for great floods, for earthquakes (one knocked down the walls of Jericho) and even for the appearance of great plagues when the first cities emerged at just the time the early books of the OT were being written.

gillybob

Hi Steve. Fascinating topic. If the "virgin birth" happened today it could be easily explained by the use of IVF. However the Adam and Eve thing really baffles me given that (as the legend tells us) they had two sons. Which presents the problem that I am sure I don't need to spell out. I don't want to upset any of the religious people on here on Gransnet but I do think the whole thing is a little far fetched to be true.

gillybob

Hi Steve. Fascinating topic. If the "virgin birth" happened today it could be easily explained by the use of IVF. However the Adam and Eve thing really baffles me given that (as the legend tells us) they had two sons. Which presents the problem that I am sure I don't need to spell out. I don't want to upset any of the religious people on here on Gransnet but I do think the whole thing is a little far fetched to be true.

Well this is one of the many instances in which the Bible cannot, for obvious reasons, be literally true. Even so, Adam - the universal ancestor of all today's men - certainly existed, and can be traced through the Y chromosome. Eve, too, had a real existence, revealed in the cell sturctures called mitochondria. However, they certainly did not live in the same place, or at the same time, so they never had the chance to commit the first and least original of all sins.