Steve Jones webchat 15 May 1-2pm

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

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.

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

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

Oh and, would you attend an atheist church?

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

"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...

Is there a scientific explanation for the Book of Revelations?

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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 !

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.

At least he acknowledges that the King James Bible is better than modern versions. I'm with him there.

My mistake. I thought that comments on the crassness of scientists lambasting the poetry of the bible and the comfort of religion, stated in a thread about a scientist who has written a science-oriented book which has biblical references, were bound to be from people who were familiar with the book in question and who had found such an attitude in it.

I had forgotten how posts leave the original subject way behind.

And yes, science does very often deal with things that are "very probably" true, like the suggested origin of the "race of giants" who were said to have inhabited the world. They use that phrase accurately. In my post, it was my own words I was using, not a quote from the book. If you would like me to, I will find the whole genetic explanation and quote it at length, but I don't think you want that.

And, by the way, for most people religious belief and understanding, evolves throughout their lives. A closed mind is a poor thing.

Just realised that I used a lot of " " which I hate!! Must pay more attention.

Elegran, no I haven't read the book. Because I haven't all my posts are based on material in this thread not on the content of the book.

No I haven't read the book as can't download it. I just think from what i have read in other posts that "Goliath's DNA very probably had long sequences" is as much as a fiction as people believe the bible to be. How can they possibly know and "very probably" sounds like a guess.

I realise I'm talking "blind" as I said I haven't read the book.