Second Sight

I suppose it must be a quarter of a century ago that I last wrote in The Catholic Herald about my antipathy towards the charismatic and pentecostal movement – with particular reference to my scepticism about “speaking in tongues”. I received my largest postbag ever and, almost to a correspondent, I stood condemned for my lack of faith.

On Sunday I watched on Channel 4, as some of you may have done, a programme which featured an Alpha course, as developed by the Holy Trinity, Brompton. I cannot criticise the movement for its lack of success: to get groups of agnostics discussing Christianity seriously – with the real possibility that some of them will seek conversion must be applauded. So my sense that it was over-simplistic, formulaic and highly dependent on the powerful psychology of small groups must be put down to sheer prejudice.

My greatest dislike was the attempt to summon the Holy Spirit and the encouragement to “speak in tongues”. I am of course familiar with what St Paul had to say on the subject but, even if I accept his somewhat cautious views, I can see no warrant for extending the use of public and meaningless utterances, attributed to the action of the Holy Spirit, as in any way part of the Christian tradition of prayer. Most certainly it has no place in an introductory course.

I have not attended an Alpha course, either in its root Protestant form or in any modified Catholic version, so perhaps I have no right to extend an opinion – although I am fairly well read in the topic.

Some of you may have had direct or indirect experience of Alpha, or other aspects of charismatic Christianity, so don’t hesitate to come back and show me why I am wrong. Or, if you are sympathetic to my views, I would be grateful to know that I am not alone.

The difference between man and chimpanzee in genetic terms  is, as we know, very small - about 1.5 per cent. Yet the different outcome between the two species, which share a common ancestor, is very large. Investigating why is extremely interesting. It is also complex, but evolutionary biologists appear to have opened a promising door on to a lengthy passage of exploration. You will forgive me, I trust, for ruthless simplification; we are not a science journal. And I am not here writing of the infusion of the soul, but rather the biological changes which made our species fit for the integration of the soul.

The story starts with the identification of DNA sequences which have changed most since our lines diverged. The most dramatic discovery was a section of DNA which had remained stable, with only two changes, in the line from the chicken down to the last ancestor we share with the apes. A period of 300 million years. Since then (six million years) this section of DNA in the hominid line has undergone 18 changes. It is known as Human Accelerated Region 1 (HAR1). The rate of acceleration may seem small to us but in relative terms it is immense.

Ironically, HAR1 consists of what was once known as “junk DNA”, but it is now understood that some of this plays an important part in modifying the behaviour of genes, which, in turn, relate to other genes. As a result, a relatively small change here can bring about very large changes elsewhere. In this case it relates directly to the cerebral cortex - the outside crinkly part of the brain - which processes our higher and complex brain activity. Incidentally, more than half the genes near to other HARs are concerned with brain function.

The size of the human brain, which generally correlates with cognitive ability, has increased by more than three times since the split from our common ancestor. Brain size is apparently controlled by just four genes. If they had expressed themselves differently then childbirth (also made difficult by our conversion to bipedalism) would have been a very straightforward matter. But then the mothers giving birth and the babies emerging would have been a very different matter too.

There are several other HARs identified, and they are ranked according to the number of differences which have occurred in hominids. HAR2, for example, controls the foetal development of the wrist and thumb - significant since the flexible use of our hands has been important to human development from the construction of tools to the mastery of playing a piano concerto.

The ability to digest starch varies between humans, according to the number of copies of a particular DNA sequence. These appear to have multiplied at the time when the use of fire for cooking and the (much later) development of agriculture provided diets containing quantities of starch.

The ability to control fire appears to have been crucial. Hominids are unique in being able to control and use it. The oldest known hearth dates from about 800,000 years ago, pre-dating homo sapiens by some 600,000 years. It has been argued that the ability to provide light through fire changed the action of hormones pushing us along the line to modern man.

But fire has another important use. Apart from providing warmth and protection from predators, it enabled our forebears to cook meat, allowing us to digest it more easily, and to derive greater nutrition from it. Such advantages would have changed hunting patterns - allowing more time for other pursuits, and increased survival capacity. And this would probably have been accompanied by adaptations in the alimentary system to maximise the advantage. Much closer to our own time, around 9,000 years ago, we developed a version of a gene which enabled human adults to digest lactose, thus enabling us to benefit from milk products derived from herded animals. This occurred in European and African populations, but not in Asian and Latin American populations. These last groups, where they still carry an ancient primate version of the lactose gene, remain intolerant.

Unsurprisingly, changes in the hominid immune system have been many, since the efficiency of the system has a direct bearing on survival. Viruses, which play an important part in the evolutionary process, abound. Retroviruses, which can insert their genetic material into our genomes, are insidious. Fortunately many which can be identified have lost their potency, but others still lurk. Animal immune systems have evolved to deal with different circumstances. A major example here is the Aids virus against which we, unlike non-human primates, are far from immune. However, the characteristics of this difference may eventually show us how to provide human immunity.

The action of viruses reminds us that the development and spread of variants in the human genome are by no means always the result of the classic random mutation which Darwin described. We might add to the list genetic drift, which results from the natural variability occurring through the sexual reproduction (as in non-identical siblings), and which may give survival advantage resulting from certain characteristics. Much variation is also thought to occur, not simply through selection, but through the location, movement and interbreeding of ancient populations.

As they peer through the door, evolutionists naturally argue about aspects of what lies ahead. But at least they are agreed on one thing: we only know a tiny fraction of what there is to learn. The exploration of the passage which invites us will be exciting indeed.

So come and comment. We need your thoughts. Contributions from those with specialised knowledge would be valuable, as indeed would be queries about any faith questions which you think could arise.

We’ve all been working hard at serious subjects on Secondsight, so I thought we might have a little relaxation by way of a quiz – which has nothing in particular to do with faith, science or theology. Test yourself and then go to the page which records my answers – with which I am happy for you to disagree.

1 What is wrong with gilding the lily?

2 Is permitting hands-free mobile telephoning for drivers good sense?

3 Women are just as good at maths as men?

4 Archaeopteryx is a missing link between dinosaurs and birds?

5 In the American War of Independence on which hill did the first pitched battle take place?

6 Who won?

7 Who coined the phrase “Let them eat cake”?

8 When was Magna Carta signed?

9 Does the name Lucifer appear in the Bible?

10 Ye Old Tea Shoppe is a good shot at Old English?

11 Electricity flows from negative to positive?

12 In which species are the males pregnant with young?

13 Who invented the first carbon-filament light bulb?

14 Who said “A portrait is a picture in which there is something wrong with the mouth.”?

15 “Elementary, my dear Watson” occurs in which Sherlock Holmes story?

Go to ANSWERS

At his inaugural Mass Archbishop Nichols spoke of faith building a community in which superficial differences are trumped by our unity in Christ. Certainly true, but I am always suspicious of the word “community” because it is easily said, and not so easily done. Does the Church act as a community? That is the test which turns an aspiration into a reality.

Some years ago we used to talk of two different models of the Church. One was a triangle with the pope at the apex, and descending through the ranks to the bottom line of the laity; the other was a circle, with the Pope at the centre and the members who, while offering different services and functions, made up the body centred on Christ. The triangle of course indicates not community but hierarchy; the circle is structured as community and capable of being one. The metaphor is simplistic but in a broad way it contrasts two fundamentally different views of the Church.

Let me take you back to the Clergy Review of July 1964 in which the late Professor Donald Nicholl, a great and holy man, used a revealing secular example. He reported on a study which a distinguished sociologist had carried out on hospitals. Professor Revans had been asked to find out why certain hospitals had a particularly poor record in retaining junior nursing staff. Closer investigation revealed that a similar high turnover was present at all levels, up to the most senior.

As a good scientist, Revans took a comparison group of hospitals which had low turnover of staff at all levels, and he examined a range of hypotheses which might throw up essential differences. The contrast turned out to be the quality of communication.

The poor hospitals were of course communicating, but the direction of communication was typically downwards. Each level treated the level below as idiots, and the final level of idiocy was the patients at the bottom of the heap. Virtually no communication travelled upwards, and, interestingly, there was very little lateral communication - that is, the different professional functions chose to insulate themselves from each other.

The good hospitals had an easy flow of communication upwards and downwards, and the professional groups worked comfortably together to maximise efficiency. In only one respect did the good hospitals have a higher turnover: the patients had shorter stays because they got better more quickly. It was as if the poor hospitals existed to maintain themselves, with the patients as no more than an unavoidable nuisance, while the good hospitals worked together, and with the patients, in the shared objective of healing.

In case you should think that 1964 is out of date, a study of 34 public hospitals in the United States, published in February 2009, showed uncannily similar results.

Communication, however, is not simply a matter of expressing views; it necessarily involves those views being carefully listened to (though not necessarily agreed with) and the appropriate dialogue and action being promptly taken. (The capacity to listen to subordinates is one of the major factors, identified in several studies, in effective leaders.) You only need, as a proxy, to look at the letters page in this newspaper (which has a long tradition of free lay comment) to read a range of, often, radical communication. But is anyone listening?

I hear tales of marvellous parish priests who lead their laity in the full work of the local Church. But I also hear of parish priests who are still stuck in the Middle Ages, who resent any lay “interference”, and simply ignore pertinent communication. No doubt many priests find a similar variety of reaction from their respective bishops. And the Vatican can often appear to be the nearest thing to a black hole this side of astronomy. Indeed, a group of visiting American canonists found that there was very little lateral communication within the Curia. One remarked: “There is more communication at my university than there is at this international headquarters.”

Do you think that the abuses which have taken place in Ireland (and elsewhere) would have occurred in a communicating Church? Do you think that the widespread sexual abuse by clergy of nuns (mainly but not exclusively in the Third World) would have occurred in a communicating Church? Do you think that the rejection of the Faith by so many of our children and grandchildren, and the dramatic fall in adult membership, Catholic marriages and vocations would have taken place in a communicating Church?

It was understandable that the Church closed ranks at the time of the Reformation, pickling itself in aspic. And notwithstanding Vatican II (which has brought about improvements continually contended by the old guard) it remains largely and institutionally pickled. Too many people have too much to lose by way of power and accountability to release the sheet anchor of comfortable security their personalities require. In this most fundamental characteristic of community, the concept remains no more than a pious platitude.

Who will change it? Both Professor Revans and the American study I have quoted are clear that the change must come from the top if it is to be thorough and effective. But we could at least make a start nearer home. Our new Archbishop of Westminster has the intelligence to grasp the situation, and the character to bring about change. He believes in community; now he has the opportunity - and it will be a long hard road down which he has to lead us - to turn his belief from aspiration into fact.

Which model of the Church do you prefer: triangle or circle? – and why. Do you think there is a clerical caste which hides itself behind its authority? Would a “communicating” Church lead to slackness in doctrine or even a loss of unity? Tell us about your good and bad experiences of communication in the Church.

If you want to read a pretty direct book on the question try “The Reform of the Papacy” by Archbishop Quinn, who was formerly president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Amazon uk has cheap second hand copies. Best to use a UK shipper

Just how much of our moral stance is influenced by emotional reaction? A study has recently been published in which elderly but mentally fit people were asked to consider what sort of care they would choose if they were to be severely reduced by dementia.

All subjects were informed about the disabilities to be expected in severe dementia, but half were also shown a brief film which actually recorded a person with severe dementia, and so showing the limitations it caused. This group was significantly more likely to choose only “comfort care”. I take “comfort care” to mean allowing the patient to die by withdrawing his or her means of survival.

I am not addressing here the morality of “comfort care” but the engagement of the emotions by showing the film.  I compare this with the films of scans showing babies in the womb – who are recognisably babies, and behaving in a recognisably human way. You will recall that the pro-abortion lobby (I dislike the term pro-choice because only the mother has a choice) complaining about the use of such films since they might unduly influence or distress the mother. Or, as others would put it, make them face up to the reality of their options.

It seems to me that dementia films and unborn baby films are on a par – either both right or both wrong. I wonder whether you agree. And I wonder how much emotional involvement plays its part in our decisions. For example, leaving aside the justice of the cause, is a suicide bomber killing civilians more blameworthy than a Flying Fortress crew blanket bombing Hamburg?

(If you would like to read a somewhat fuller account of the dementia experiment you can do so here. You may also be moved, as I was, by a short video interview with a mother who decided to carry her grossly disabled baby to term. Find it here.)

It would be wrong to saddle Charles Darwin with responsibility for the eugenics movement, which was to blacken the 20th century leading up to its culmination at the Nuremberg Trials. Nevertheless, the concept of natural selection provided an intellectual underpinning which the godless commandeered to justify the movement. The idea that society would benefit by the eradication of the inferior and the imbecile had already been put into the air by Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who held that the population must eventually outstrip resources. Even Darwin predicted that the civilised races would eventually eradicate the savage. This was soon to be fulfilled through the death of the last Tasmanian aboriginal in 1876.

Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest”, although Darwin was to use it in his 1869 edition. The fittest did not mean the strongest but fittest for the prevailing conditions. And Spencer was anxious for action, calling for the theory to be turned into a political manifesto. Francis Galton, half-cousin to Darwin, and a brilliant scientist, was first to use the word “eugenic” following his detailed studies into the characteristics of inherited intelligence. He was to observe in his book, Heredity Genius (1869), the inferiority of the “lower races” compared with the European. Noting that the working classes had large families, he advocated a higher level of breeding among the intelligent.

While a casual and cruel attitude to-wards the “lower races” was endemic in British imperialism it was not until the turn of the 20th century that eugenics came to be considered a respectable and practical issue. Winston Churchill was strongly in favour, regarding the “multiplication of the feeble minded” as “a terrible danger to the human race”. He saw eugenics as a crusade for the future of civilisation. He was not alone: luminaries such as William Beveridge, H G Wells and G B Shaw were with him. Fortunately Parliament was not, and the call for the sterilisation of the “inferior” was rejected. Much of the rhetoric, presented as the rights of women and the remedy for illegal abortion, which resulted in the 1967 Abortion Act, found its origin in the eugenics movement.

The United States took up the banner with a will, and scientist Charles Davenport wrote his influential Heredity in Relation to Eugenics in 1911. He applied his expertise in animal biometrics to humans, studied racial characteristics in great detail, and, on the basis of statistics recorded by the Eugenic Records Office – which he had founded – became an ardent supporter of the movement. Its promotion was widespread and the Supreme Court’s favourable ruling in 1927 (Buck vs Bell) declared forcible sterilisation constitutional. Between 1907 and 1970 over 60,000 people in America had been victims. The last such sterilisation was reported from Oregon in 1981. Davenport contributed to German periodicals and institutions well into the Nazi era.

But the Germans hardly needed encouragement. Eugenics had been scientifically respectable since Fischer, Bauer and Lenz first published Foundations of Human Hereditary Teaching and Racial Hygiene in 1921. As Rector of Berlin University Eugen Fischer proclaimed in 1935 that “What Darwin was not able to do genetics has achieved. It has destroyed the theory of the equality of man.” By 1942 the German high command had decided on the Final Solution: that all Jews must be exterminated. Even to omit pockets of racial inferiority carried the danger of future revival. Of course many others who were ruled as inferior by Nazi standards went the same way.

Eugenics has become a dirty word, but the spirit lives on. The right to abort a disabled baby up to the time of birth is eugenics writ large. The procedure of permitting multiple embryos, so that only those without apparent defect will be permitted to survive, continues. It was not until 1976 that Sweden abolished laws promoting the sterilisation of women for openly eugenic reasons. I suspect that approval of eugenics remains deep within our society. It may not use the term, but eugenics by any other name will smell as foul.

Fundamentalist science leads logically from the survival of the fittest to the ultimate extermination of those who do not qualify. If man is no more than a highly evolved animal, with no special characteristics beyond an extended evolution of brain capacity, there is no reason, at least in principle, to hold back. Would not the world be a better place if we rid it of the mentally inferior, the severely disabled, the aged and incompetent and the underclass?

Julian Huxley, in his Galton Lecture of 1962, certainly agreed. Darwinian theory led him directly to advocating compulsory sterilisation for the underclass which, he claimed, had low IQ, little willpower and other genetic abnormalities – combined with an inveterate tendency to over-breed. 

Why do we continue to support and preserve Aids victims in sub-Saharan Africa when to leave them to die would eventually eradicate the disease? Every action which enables some population to survive is a fist in the face of Nature. We became homo sapiens only through the survival of the fittest; surely we should not use our ingenuity to defeat the very principle which brought us into existence.

Before we pat ourselves on the back for rejecting these views we must be honest enough to ask ourselves whether we retain any traces of eugenic thinking. And we must be prepared to remember that there was a time when we believed that the persecution of the unfit – those who rejected Catholic Christianity – was virtuous. There is blood on our hands too, and some of it is Jewish.

Do you think that eugenics inevitably arise from Darwinism? Is it fair to judge Darwinism by its abuse? Do we not all have a duty to improve human stock? There is good scientific evidence that, albeit at an unconscious level, we tend to pick partners, either through physical features or the recognition of different but complementary immune systems, in order to have healthy children. So eugenics are natural. Tell us what you think.

The following leading article from the issue of 29 May 2009 is reproduced by permission of The Catholic Herald. It is the voice of the newspaper and thus anonymous

The official executive summary of the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is literally sickening. No one without a heart of tungsten can read this sorry account of generations of child abuse, sexual predation, near starvation and cruel and arbitrary physical punishment and feel no shame.

We are all tainted: every good Catholic, every good priest, every good bishop, every good pope is sullied by what was done or tolerated by the Catholic Church. We are the universal Church and the sin of one is the sin of all. We are ashamed of the Crusades, we are ashamed of the Inquisition – yet for both of these there was at least a kind of mistaken rationale within the context of the time. There is no rationale whatsoever for wanton, institutionalised and sustained cruelty to the young and poor. 

How was it possible for the main culprits – the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy – whose lives were sworn to the Gospel, to act over generations in a way that is about as far from the spirit of the Gospel as it is possible to get? How could the heads of these orders and the Church authorities not only overlook but positively collude with these scandalous activities by protecting them through a conspiracy of silence? Both the orders are headquartered in Rome, and it seems certain that the situation was known to the Vatican, and even to previous popes. It has happened before. The widespread sexual abuse of African nuns by Catholic priests, about which several reports were made to the Vatican throughout the 1990s, was only dragged into the open by the National Catholic Reporter in 2001.

We are not talking about an aberration by a handful of wicked people acting in defiance of the Church. Sadly, we are talking about a deep cleft in the ranks of the Church itself. 

The report exposes a culture which hides behind a clericalism which is prepared to protect vicious behaviour at the expense of defenceless innocents, many of whom carry their scars throughout life.

We have heard much recently about dishonourable financial activities by Members of Parliament. But even the most flagrant have been mere peccadilloes compared to the behaviour of those involved directly with this scandal, or indirectly by concealment. The call from Parliament has been for a root and branch reform of corruption. We are entitled to call for a root and branch reform of a corrupt clericalism which can stamp on the Gospel, protected by silence and the misplaced loyalty of Church members.

Quentin writes: This leader is pretty strong stuff, but, in my view, is fully justified by this shameful affair. You will find the full, official Executive Summary here. You may well want to contribute additional points, and of course you are at liberty to disagree with any part, or indeed all, of the CH’s view.

We are having an interesting exploration into the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib. So we might take this a stage further by looking at the Flood. This story is clearly one of great import, and has certainly captured imaginations throughout the ages. Indeed its narrative features were common in the Babylonian world, where at least ten different versions existed. And it appears in other cultures too. Of course there were local floods – which hardly match up, but perhaps the writer or writers used a folk memory of a particularly extensive catastrophe like the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. But there is no sign as yet in the archaeological record of a flood equating to the biblical description. 

The story, as it stands in Genesis, has some interesting features. We are told of an anthropomorphic God who appears to have changed his mind through his experience of sin in the world. God repents. Not, we would think, characteristic of the omniscient nature of God. Then, by our unenlightened standards, he simply proclaims genocide. Wicked though the world might have been, it must have contained at least innocent children, even if every one of the adults (except Noah) deserved a death sentence.

The physical features also raise questions. John Paulos, the distinguished American mathematician, taking account of the time period (40 days and nights) and the height of the mountains, calculates that the rain must have fallen at the rate of at least 15 feet an hour – enough to sink an aircraft carrier, let alone the ark. 

There is also the question of space. Noah was commanded to embark all the animals, the birds and crawling things. The fish seem to have got off lightly. We don’t know how many species existed at the time, and whether they were more and fewer than today. 15,000 new species were first discovered in 2008. So I think we can assume a large number, perhaps  running into the millions. And of course, double that number to provide male and female. Provisions for feeding them had to be carried too. Is this implausible?

I wonder, too, about the special sign of the rainbow. Since this is a spectrum of light caused by the interaction of the sun with moist atmosphere it presumably occurred as a phenomenon long before the Flood.

 Alternatively, we might suppose that, under the inspiration of the Spirit, the writers took a common folk account, whose literal truth or otherwise is not of consequence, and wove it into the history of salvation. Sin does bring death into the world, but God has promised that he will save the world. He will indeed provide an ark of salvation through his death (a taking-on of sin) – and we would see that ark as the Church. The animals are properly there because it is the whole of creation, not just man, which is transformed at the last day. In Romans 8, Paul speaks of all creation “groaning” for salvation. It is a marvellous passage to revisit. We do not know how this will be, but we do know that somehow the whole of nature is involved in redemption, and that, in our care for nature – akin to Noah’s care – we are contributing to this.

On May 7 1959 C P Snow delivered his Rede Lecture on “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution”. His theme that there was an ever-widening gap between science and the humanities has influenced me ever since. He recounted how he had asked cultural luminaries, who were only too ready to leap on any intellectual mistake by a scientist, to define the second law of thermodynamics - and received no answer. I reflected, with shame, that the question would have foxed me too. So I started to read science - which is why you have a Science and Faith column in this newspaper today.

Snow, both a scientist and a novelist, deplored the contempt in which intellectuals held science to be no more than a kind of advanced artisanship while they revered an old culture, nowadays often attributed to “Dead White European Males” which was, in his view, already in decay and increasingly irrelevant. The future of civilisation, he claimed, depended on the explosion of science which alone could maintain it and spread its benefits of prosperity and the good life to the developing world.

Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, has just published an excellent book on the controversy Snow triggered, and the 50-year aftermath. Edited by Robert Whelan, who writes a fine opening essay, it is called From Two Cultures to No Culture - which indicates its drift.

Although science was only recognised as a discipline with its own name in the 1830s, it goes back at least as far as Thales (seventh century BC). Many would date the beginnings of the modern scientific method to Francis Bacon at the turn of the 17th century. In essence it starts with a hypothesis about cause and effect in the material world from which predictions can be made. These predictions can then be tested with empirical evidence, which either confirm or refute the hypothesis.

Science is a progressive discipline. Despite errors and revisions it accretes knowledge, with practical certainty. It builds on what it has established at an accelerating rate. But philosophy does not. A modern philosophy may deal with different subjects from a different aspect, but its raw material was available to Plato. And, prescinding from Revelation, neither does religion. Who would claim to know more about the nature of God than, say, St Paul? Such questions are limited to the possibility of understanding more deeply what has been known from the beginning.

Both cultures are directed at truth, although their fields of inquiry are different. They can be, and often are, at loggerheads. But the disputes resolve themselves with better understanding. We all find it difficult to live meanwhile with ambiguity, yet the ability to do so is a sign of wisdom and maturity. Dismantling the barriers makes them complementary in many ways. Keats complained that Newton had “destroyed all the poetry of the rainbow, by reducing it to a prism”. But he was wrong. At a human level we can still rejoice at the wonder of a rainbow and, at another, rejoice in our understanding of how it comes about.

Science offers service to religion, by helping us to distinguish between the direct action of God in, for instance, the evolution of man, and the spiritual aspects - of which we are certain but which are not susceptible to scientific analysis. It eradicates the dangerous, and potentially scandalous, theory of the “God of the gaps” by making us face up to the utter otherness of God. We should be in awe of God’s creation ex nihilo, and in awe at what the scientists tell us of the architecture and the origins of man.

But when science is taken as a panacea it becomes dangerous. Snow believed that the dissemination and heavy funding of science and technology in underdeveloped countries would close the gap between rich and poor. But this has proved to be dramatically wrong. His failure, not confined to him, to understand through history and literature the factors of human nature which have so often choked rational advance, blinded him to the difficulties.

 It is man’s inclination to sin which has - through war, tribalism, aggrandisement and corruption - prevented the benefits of science from reaching those who need it most. It can teach all of us, scientists included, that bread alone is not enough, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Science, however powerful in itself, cannot succeed in improving the human lot without the conversion which leads man to the love of God - directly, or through love of neighbour.

Civitas, though not dealing with the specifically religious aspects, is not optimistic. It sees the trend in education as running against the value of the academic mastery of knowledge in both the sciences and the arts. The science curriculum is elided into a subject of general interest, and students can complete their education with minimal knowledge of history and without the opportunity to study a classic book or play at the depth at which its real treasures can be found. The emphasis is on education for change, but we cannot understand change unless we know how we got there first.

While this superficial educational approach affects the next generation, I continue to be concerned at the confidence of opinions expressed to me by so many of the older generations. Often they appear to be based on smatterings of truth which mislead because they are not based within a sound context. Did you know that a third of senior science teachers in America teach Creationism, and a quarter believe that it can be proved scientifically? 

Fortunately, this kind of thing is relatively rare on Secondsightblog, but I look forward to reading your comments. It may be that you think that the compass has shifted and that our society is focussed unhealthily on science at the expense of the humanities. Or you may think that our culture is stronger and more coherent than it was 50 years ago. Perhaps our capacity for instant communication, or the ability to find knowledge on the internet has relieved us from time-consuming study. Is this a mixed blessing?

“And the Lord God cast a deep slumber on the human, and he slept, and He took one of his ribs and closed over the flesh where it had been, and the Lord God took the rib he had taken from the human into a woman…” (Genesis 2, translated by Robert Alter directly from the Hebrew)

I am disinclined to write further about the literal interpretation of Genesis in the newspaper; it only seems to draw letters from readers who are either unfamiliar with the evidence or determined to reject it on ideological grounds. So I quote this passage here because it is interesting to speculate with you on the truth which inspired the narrative.

Since sexual evolution has existed for many millions of years, and is of course directly evident in our hominid forebears, it would seem strange indeed for God to have decided to create the female of home sapiens in such a remarkable way. Presumably Eve would have been a near-clone of Adam (a near-clone because she would have had a full set of x chromosomes rather than the denatured y chromosome left in Adam). I can see some real genetic problems here, and these would presumably have caused further difficulties in their immediate descendants.

We are familiar with the King James’ translation “help meet for him”, as the reason for creating Eve, but Alter chooses “sustainer.” The Hebrew is ‘ezer kenegdo. ‘ezer means “active intervention” and kenegdo may best be translated as “counterpart”. Aquinas thought that the conception of woman was a happy accident of God’s providence, but an accident nevertheless. What is the Hebrew for Vive la différence?

So the original does not seem to have any overtones of male superiority, and Genesis1 says quite simply “male and female” he created them. Perhaps this equality is all the more significant because Scripture was written, and so reflects, patriarchal times. Should we place any significance on the fact that the male is mentioned first? Does the way in which Jesus treated men and women have a bearing on our understanding?

It leaves me in a quandary. When I was married, over 50 years ago, my wife promised to obey me. Since this promise no longer has to be made she takes the view that her undertaking has been nullified. Of course I disagree. Not that the question has any practical relevance. We discovered who was boss years ago.

(A note. This piece was temporarily published before I spotted a typo at the top. I had written “one of his fibs”. I was tempted to leave it for someone to spot…)