Francisco Ayala “Am I a Monkey?” - on religion, evolution and Richard Dawkins

Unlike Francisco Ayala, I will not critique a book that I have not read; yes, he tends to do this as evidenced in “Signature in the Cell,” “Signature of Controversy” and the Signature of Pseudo-Scientific Sloth part 1 and part 3

Perhaps the best answer to the question “Am I a Monkey?,” the title of his most recent book, is “And you smell like one too”—wow, I have not used that line since about 4th grade.

Francisco Ayala did make some interesting remarks whilst interviewed by Lori Kozlowski (“Author of 'Am I a Monkey?' explores questions of life,” Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2010):

On the cover of his new book, Francisco Ayala is sticking a banana on a fork and asking: Am I a monkey? He asks five other straightforward questions about evolution — laying out for the general public the most commonly discussed topics surrounding how human life came to be…

What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins? How is your take different from his?
I admire Richard Dawkins…Considering the matter of religion, it surprises me that he is so antagonistic toward people of faith. He often says he is 95% certain that God does not exist. There is no way from science to reach such a conclusion. Science and religion are like two windows through which we look at the world. Though the windows are different, they need not be in contradiction.

Being an opportunist; Richard Dawkins will say whatever is convenient at the time. Thus, he has set God’s existence at 97% but has also positively affirmed God’s non-existence:

One the question of there being no way for science to come to conclusions about God’s existence or lack thereof, see:
Omni-Science

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?: part-1, part 2 Massimo Pigliucci & part 3 Richard Dawkins

On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.: part 1, part 2, part 3 & part 4

Can you talk more about how science and religion can live in tandem?
Science deals with the origin of organisms, the origin of human beings, and biodiversity of living things. Religion deals with the meaning of life and the purpose of life, and the moral values that should govern our lives. So these are different matters. Science has no way of exploring values.

This appears to play off of what is known as Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA: Non Overlapping Magisteria (which some, such as Richard Dawkins, reject).
As for science dealing with the origin of organisms, see:
Atheism and Science : John Horgan, "In the Beginning..." - Scientific American

Even More Evidence for Intelligent Design!!! On Craig Venter's Work

The fact is that “religion,” in this case I reference Judeo-Christianity, does deal with “origin of organisms, the origin of human beings, and biodiversity of living things”—at a certain level. The Bible may not give us a detailed step by step elucidation as to how life came into being but it does state that a being to whom life is intrinsic created other living beings (the argument from contingency) and it does predict that we are made of the stuff of the earth. It also states that organisms reproduce after their own kind.
It also predicts that the universe had a beginning, predicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, etc. (see, The First Commandment of Thermodynamics).

As to science having no way of exploring values; he better check with Sam Harris; the neuro-pseudo-scientist, see:
Sam Harris “The Moral Landscape” — will science prescribe morals?, part 1 and part 2
Is Sam Harris’ “Moral Landscape” moral?
"Survivor Stories" from the Holocaust and Sam Harris

Also, see my debate with an atheist on the issue of morality, here is a sample:

You write: "Science is a wondrously successful way of knowing the world, but it isn't the only way. Knowledge also derives from other sources, such as common-sense experience, imaginative literature, music and artistic experience."
All of them teach us something, but in a different way. The great French writer Albert Camus once said, and I'm paraphrasing: One learns more about the universe by contemplating a starry night than reading all the books of physics and astronomy. So what he was saying is that common experience can teach us something. Creative literature, music and art can also teach us.

Indeed, we can learn more about YHVH by contemplating a starry night than reading all the books of theology or atheism:

The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork.Day unto day utters speech,And night unto night reveals knowledge.There is no speech nor languageWhere their voice is not heard.Their line has gone out through all the earth,And their words to the end of the world (Psalm 19:1-4)

…what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20)

Incidentally, we are all metaphysicians and atheists are the most dogmatic theologians; they are dogmatheistic.

So, let's answer the title of your book: Am I a monkey? How closely are we humans related?
We are very closely related to the chimpanzees; less so to other apes and monkeys. It depends on how you choose to measure the relationship. In time, our closest ancestor with the chimps lived 7 or 8 million years ago…We are genetically and evolutionarily very close. But we are extremely different when it comes to intelligence…We [humans] adapt not by waiting for our genes to change, but rather we've reversed the process — we adapt by changing the environment according to the needs of our genes. We live in cold regions by using clothing and housing. We fly and navigate not because we have evolved wings or gills, but by using airplanes and boats…

Note Richard Dawkins’ statement, “We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes.”1
Charles Darwin wrote, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”2G. K. Chesterton noted, “That an ape has hands is far less interesting to the philosopher than the fact that having hands he does next to nothing with them; does not play knuckle-bones or the violin; does not carve marble or carve mutton.” (from Orthodoxy which you can hear as a free audio book).

You write that evolution is a theory but that it is also a fact. Explain.
First, it is a theory. But the word "theory" in science means something different than in general usage, where it commonly means "a hunch." That's not the way we use the word in science. A theory in science is a body of knowledge and the evidence that supports that knowledge.
Evolution is also a fact — the evidence is so strong. All the experts accept it. We have more evidence for evolution than we have for the existence of atoms and molecules. And you don't see people going around doubting atoms and molecules.

Perhaps in his book he will define what he means by “evolution.” For example, he stated that “Science deals with the origin of organisms”; “science” might but “evolution” does not. Even the term “On the Origin of Species” as in “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” did not refer to the actual beginnings of life but to how, supposedly, subsequent species originate. On the actual beginnings of life Charles Darwin had no more to say than Dr. Seuss, see: Was Charles Darwin Wrong?
It is true that “you don't see people going around doubting atoms and molecules” which is interesting in that so many atheists believe in the existence of invisible realities that move and shape creation. Along with the Laws of Physics, etc. they believe in invisible, intangible—and for all we know—omnipresent, omnipotent forces…sounds familiar.

You discuss "What is life?" Can you talk about this?
We have hypotheses of how life began, but we definitely don't have the final answer.
The two essential components of life are DNA (heredity) and metabolism (life processes). They are like the software and the hardware of a computer; we need both. The difficulty is that DNA (the software) has the information about metabolism, about how to make the computer. But that information cannot be read without the computer.
Scientists have now discovered ribozymes, RNA molecules that function also as enzymes. They can function both as software and as hardware.

See the links above to the issue of actual origins, let us end by noting that any successful experiment that produces life will actually be evidence for creation via intelligent design.

1. 1. Richard Dawkins, writing in the Late City Final Edition (4-9-89)
2. 2. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, p. 180