Charles Russell vs. Charles Darwin

by SickofLies 2 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • SickofLies

    "when a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him." (ASV)
    The question is: Who is the real false profit here? Lets take a look at some of their predictions and you judge for yourself.
    First in the right corner wearing the cardboard sign that says "THE END IS NEAR!" I give you Charles Taze Russell (1852 - 1916)
    Charles Taze Russell is a firm believer that Jesus has installed himself as King (1879) in heaven and that soon an event will take place as described in Rev 16:16. This end is to include the War of Armageddon, and the return of Jesus Christ to earth to establish his kingdom. God will conduct a mass genocide during this time which will involve the deaths of billions of people. Over 99% of the humans on earth at this future time will die. This will be the greatest genocide the world has seen. Jews, Muslims, most Christians, and followers of other religions will be exterminated.
    In his six volumes, Studies in the Scriptures, Charles Taze Russell (founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) made many predictions that were tied to specific dates (e.g., 1878, 1910, 1915).
    And, with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon , and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as is already shown from prophecy." Studies In The Scriptures, Vol. III, (1897)
    "...we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914" (1889).
    However, in 1912, he back-peddled somewhat:

    "...he wrote that, while the prophecy remains valid, the power of the Gentiles could end either in October 1914 or in October 1915."
    In 1914-NOV, immediately after Russell's prophecy had failed, he wrote that the period of transition could run a "good many years." The Watchtower magazine suggested that the destruction would happen "...shortly after 1914 with the utter destruction" of other Christian denominations and the inauguration of Christ's millennial reign. They first predicted that this would happen in 1915. Drawing a parallel with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 CE, the authors of the 1915 Edition of The Time Is At Hand wrote: "The Gentile Times prove that the present governments must all be overthrown about the close of A.D. 1915; and Parallelism above shows that this period corresponds exactly with the year A.D. 70, which witnessed the completion of the downfall of the Jewish polity."
    Now ladies and gentlemen I turn your attention to the man over in the left corner Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and his highly trained squad of killer monkey's!
    Charles Darwin traveled the world and gathered put together a theory which described how living things came into existance and how they adapt to live in changing environments. The two main components of Darwinism are Descent with Modification ("Evolution") and Natural Selection.
    One reason for the long term success of Darwin's book was his consideration of alternative hypotheses, the predictions of these hypotheses, and how the results of his observations and experiments could be explained (or left unexplained) by these hypotheses. He presented three possible theories for the orgin of life on earth:
    1. Separate ("Special") Creation (e.g., Cuvier)—Species are fixed entities that neither change nor give rise to different (descendant) species; no mechanism is proposed that is measurable (thus severely limiting the ability to make predictions).
    2. Transformism (e.g., Lamarck)—Species lineages change over time along a predetermined pathway (e.g., toward increasing complexity), but branching does not occur; orthogenesis is one proposed "mechanism".
    3. Branching "Evolution" (as per Darwin)—Species lineages usually change over time (though rates of change may vary) and are derived from common ancestral lineages; natural selection is the main, but not exclusive, mechanism.
    Each of these hypotheses were testable (as were Russell's predicitions with enough time). In order to determine which theory is correct needs only to look at the evidence. Here is the evidence Darwin provided for his theory:
    In his Origin, Darwin presents his evidence supporting "descent with modification" (branching evolution) in several chapters:
    A. In Chapters 1 and 2, he considers how patterns of variation in domesticated and wild fauna and flora support descent with modification.
    B. In Chapters 10-12, he shows how the patterns of species distributions in time and space support branching evolution from common ancestral lineages. He considered this evidence to be especially strong.
    C. In Chapter 13, he shows how branching evolution explains a range of different phenomena: e.g., why a hierarchical system is used for classification, why morphological features used for completely different functions nevertheless show "homology" in form, and why vestigial ("rudimentary") organs exist.
    Predictions made by Darwin: Whales evolved from land animals
    Birds have scales on their legs and reptile like features that probably evolved from Dinosaurs
    Who's the winner? You decide!

  • james_woods

    Obvious. But another real winner was that big turtle that Darwin brought back from the island.

    I heard it is still alive in the London Zoo? - at least, a few years back. How cool is that!!

    BTW, let's remember that the naturalists and geologists of Darwin's day were far ahead of the physics-chemists crowd (let alone the clerics)when it came to asking questions on the age of the earth and sun. That debate raged on for many more years and some aspects continue today.


  • Boxed elder bugs
    Boxed elder bugs

    Very revealing comparison. I think the Witnesses teaching made a monkey out of me until my thinking evolved. When I was in high school I took the evolution book and tried to prove to my biology teacher the creationist view. I realized then that the Witnesses argument was an over simplification as the teacher's case held so much more detailed evidence, I felt a little silly.

    If the creationists are going to mess with the theory of evolution as it's taught in the public schools they need to make a much stronger case than the witnesses did back then.

    I think the religions in the United States should just leave science alone, from what I have experienced science pursues 'the truth' and the religions pursue the money. Charles Darwin wins this contest, Charles Russell looks like a nut.

Share this