Hello,
I have begun writing a letter to the Watchtower regarding some problems I found in the Creation book. While I'm sure many of these "problems" are common knowledge nearly 25 years after the fact, I still would greatly appreciate any constructive criticism that can be offered here. I plan to give a copy of my letter to both of my relatives who are current members of the organization. I am not an expert in grammar, and have a very limited knowledge of science. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Please read and tell me what you think! Thank you...
Dear Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
I am writing this letter in regards to your publication “Life: How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?”. As my copy states it is a book that “presents a thoroughly researched examination of how life got here”, was first published in 1985, and is still in circulation with over 41 million copies published as of my copy. My intent in writing this letter is to pose questions I have regarding this book, not to exalt the theory of evolution(theory as fact) or darwinism(theory as mechanism) as I understand them to be two very different things. In short I want a clarification of the facts presented therein and an explanation regarding some perceived deceptions in the book.
While I am not (and never have been) a baptized member of Jehovah’s Witnesses nor have I been a publisher since my teenage years, I have members of my family who are both of the aforementioned. My goal here is to have my questions answered and to gain a better understanding of the facts presented here. Perhaps I am missing something important and will be shown the error of my thought process. I am not educated beyond the High School level, and have no academic credentials in any of the sciences and do not consider myself to be any sort of expert regarding evolution but rather a curious and enthusiastic observer of scientific progress.
Darwin observed data that was interpreted in the context of natural selection. Whether his theory of natural selection was correct or not does not change the fact that the empirical data was observed and documented. On page 17 of the hereafter referred to as “Creation” book if only because of the conclusion reached within, an artistic interpretation of scientists hotly in debate along with a quote from “evolutionist” Francis Hitching obviously is intended to show that no general consensus has thus far been reached as to the theory of evolution. Previously on page 15, Francis Hitching is quoted from his book The Neck of the Giraffe saying “for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.” What is conspicuously not quoted is explicitly stated after this statement in Hitching’s book where he continues: “Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don’t. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms." Please explain this omission. Surely you can see how readers of your book can get the wrong impression regarding evolution as fact and evolution as theory? If this was the only example of words being taken out of context in the book, I could understand this as an error and not as a deliberate act of deception.
On page 38 and paragraph’s 3-5 you quote from Richard Dawkins, in my estimation grossly out of context. Consider the quote on paragraph 5 regarding his groundbreaking book the Selfish Gene:
“This book should be read almost as tough it were science fiction”.
Why stop there? Let’s read what was actually said in its context:
“This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth."
Is it moral to take someones words completely out of context? I find the tone in these particular paragraphs smarmy and offensive! Let’s all laugh at one of the most respected scientists of our generation? The first sentence of paragraph 5 seems to appeal to the most primitive of logic.
Richard Dawkins, author of several books including The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestors Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The God Delusion has certainly not treated you the same. In fact in the God Delusion he quotes from the Creation book in the beginning of his 3rd chapter. In what he refers to as the “Argument from Improbability”, he discusses some of the statements made on pages 144-149 of the Creation book:
“Picking a page at random from this anonymous and lavishly distributed work, we find the sponge known as Venus’ Flower Basket (Euplectella), accompanied by a quotation from Sir David Attenborough, no less: “When you look at the complex sponge skeleton such as that made of silica spicules which is known as Venus’ Flower Basket, the imagination is baffled. How could quasi-independent microscopic cells collaborate to secrete a million glassy splinters and construct such an intricate and beautiful lattice? We do not know.” The Watchtower authors lose no time in adding their own punchline: “But one thing we do know: Chance is not the likely designer.” No indeed, chance is not the likely designer. That is one thing on which we can all agree. The statistical improbability of phenomena such as Euplectella’s skeleton is the central problem that any theory of life must solve. The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what impossible means. But the candidate solutions to the riddle of improbability are not, as is falsely implied, design and chance. They are design and natural selection. Chance is not a solution, given the high levels of improbability we see in living organisms, and no sane biologist ever suggested it was…
He continuously finds the same argument repeated ad nauseam, design versus chance. He continues with a quote from page 149:
“”A puny man, standing at a sequoia’s base, can only gaze upward in silent awe at its massive grandeur. Does it make sense to believe that the shaping of this majestic giant and of the tiny seed that packages it was not by design?” Yet again, if you thing the only alternative to design is chance then, no, it does not make sense. But again the authors omit all mention of the real alternative, natural selection, either because they genuinely don’t understand it or because they don’t want to.
Professor Dawkins continues in this chapter titled “Why there is almost Certainly No God” he explains how the logic of creationism is flawed, and that God creates a bigger problem than the improbable subject we attempt to explain. We know that life is improbable, but however improbable it may be, it occurs. The argument from design merely capitulates any attempt at explanation by throwing a creator God into the equation. We see the same logic applied to explanations of the mundane all the way up to the biggest question ever posed: How did we come to be? My point here is to show you that he clearly did not treat you to the same dubious treatment shown him on pages 38 and 39.
To say that no consensus has been reached among scientists regarding evolution is misleading in its vagueness to say the least. Evolution as theory is a process often called Darwinism that attempts to explain the clear and abundant evidence of evolution as fact! The argument arises from how it occurs, and there are differing interpretations for the process of evolution but so far as I know there is a consensus that evolution as a process in itself is a fact.
An example would be Newton’s law of gravity. Newton observed phenomena that he had no explanation for. The fact that he had no explanation for the phenomena surely didn’t change the fact that it was occurring. Through use of the scientific method he came up with a theory which explains said natural phenomena. More recently, Einstein concluded his general “Theory of Relativity” in which aspects of Newton’s “Law of Gravity” begin to break down. And onward science marches, while apples still fall from trees irregardless of our now more complex understanding of nature, light is observed as both particle and wave, and quantum physics baffles the imagination of the most celebrated scientists.
Many paragraphs within the Creation book quote “evolutionist” Francis Hitching. Surely you are aware of the credentials and theories espoused by Mr. Hitching? My research has shown that Mr. Hitching has no schooling beyond the American equivalent of a High School Diploma, is not a scientist by any stretch, and his theories for the explanation of evolution would be described by many in your organization as “demonic”. Please correct me if I am wrong. Do you understand how the impression of authority is given in your book regarding Mr. Hitching? Hitching is probably best known for his television program “In Search Of…” on the BBC. It is common knowledge that he is a proponent of ESP, Psychic Research and various other unscientific endeavors. Is it appropriate to quote from such a person in a book purporting to be a “thoroughly researched examination”? Would active Jehovah’s Witnesses find Hitching’s explanations for evolutionary processes palatable? Hitching seems to be in a “no mans land” where he offends both scientists and Christian creationists. His logic is faulty, and the truth is that the scientific community is often indifferent to him, and at times embarrassed by him. The well known scientist Dr. Stephen Gould denied any knowledge of him prior to his “Neck of the Giraffe” book despite Hitching’s claims that he had helped him! Dr. Gould is quoted as saying “I have never met him and have no information”. Hitching claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute of London when they also have denied even knowing him! If this is in fact the case, he is a liar. One of the most quoted “evolutionists” in your book is a liar, and a strange sort of evolutionist at that!
At the time of the Creation books writing, the general consensus was that all dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles as is correctly stated on page 75 paragraph 11. This has now changed. There has been sufficient evidence since then that has shown that some dinosaurs were in fact warm blooded, and this is a fact. The fact that no living bird on earth possesses teeth in maturity is a fact. It is also a fact that within the egg and tucked into the genetic code of birds are the instructions for creating teeth. The archaeopteryx (crossed out on page 20) possessed teeth, the ability to fly and feathers! When discovered this was such a shock to the scientific community that some accused the archaeopteryx of being a forgery. This was proven to be a false accusation and now it is recognized as having characteristics of a bird but more closely resembling a dinosaur in its features. Surely an update to your argument regarding this creature is in order, is it not?
How about the case of Homo Erectus? After nearly a quarter of a century since the initial publication of the Creation book, we must have new data that backs up the creationist model for this anomaly? How can its cranial capacity be explained within this context? Was it a man or was it a monkey?
Why is the scientific method so great?
Consider the genetic research being done on birds and the wealth of genetic information stored within that backs up the theory that they evolved from dinosaurs. Consider the modern interpretation of Genetic Drift.
Consider the fact that one whole paragraph was given the discussion of Homo Erectus on page 95! Consider the fact that in a book published in 1985, the Encylopedia Brittanica quoted from regarding Homo Erectus was from 1976! Why? Please tell me why? Because I am starting to think this is a gross attempt at deception because in 1985 there were in fact different quotes regarding Homo Erectus in more recent editions of Encyclopedia Britannica. We know “indistinguishable” and “similar” to have very different meanings, so are we picking and choosing here? Or did it just so happen that the copy of the Encyclopedia you had in your library at the time had a statement that seemed to support your argument?
Please explain the concept of Chapter 20, “What Choice Will You Make?”. I fail to understand how this is a matter of simply choosing. I am unable to believe in something that I do not have facts for. Many people choose to believe in all sorts of things but that doesn’t make them hold a modicum of truth. Believing in an omnipotent creator who will save me from death or be the facilitator of my death may be palatable to some, I find it inherently immoral. Does doing an act considered good carry inherent “goodness” in its motive? More directly, is God good just because “he” is God? Do we default to human fallibility in such questions, and throw our hands up in the air in surrender? Do we find parallels in this kind of thinking and a psychological motive to the belief in God as active participant in human affairs? One does not have to believe in the theory of gravity to feel its effects, so we don’t really have a logical choice to make here. Surely we could suspend our belief in it and suffer the dire consequences, but that doesn’t change the fact that our beliefs are irrelevant to the laws of nature.
Surely one cannot entirely disprove the theory of creationism, but that is exactly why it is unscientific! As the late Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences Carl Sagan stated in his The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:
“Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.”
Clearly we have eradicated any form of “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (as described by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion) from the argument. We have dived into the world of science, and found its source of authority refreshingly enlightening but ultimately fallacious! Why is science praised on page 10 of the Creation book? Essentially what is at stake here is not Evolutionism versus Creationism, but the Scientific Method itself versus Creationism! Perhaps 23 years after the first publication of the Creation book an updated book is in order? At least a revision? An apology? A “thoroughly researched examination of how life got here” surely doesn’t end in 1985?
A Letter to Watchtower regarding Creation book
by portcontrol7 3 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
portcontrol7
-
nameless_one
A noble effort, and a plethora of very valid questions and concerns. You might be interested to review the correspondence that is archived here: http://www.watchtowerletters.com/Home.html (copy and paste the link into your browser; I don't know how to make it clickable).
This link is a series of letters to and from the WTS that address many of the issues you raise here. I think it could be very interesting reading for you, and could also provide you with additional resources to consider and cite, as the author raised many of the same questions you pose here. If you read through all of the letters, it will also give you an idea of what you might expect from the WTS in terms of answers (hint: not much). You might not get what you seek from the WTS, but perhaps you will have some success opening the eyes of your loved ones. Good luck and best wishes; welcome and thanks for sharing.
Edited to add another link that might be helpful for you: http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/critical.htm -
Hellrider
Portcontrol: Read this excellent essay on the (exact) subject you are adressing the Watchtower about (misquoting and such):
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-disagreements-about-evolution.html
-
sir82
Nice effort, however:
The low-level Bethel lackey who opens the mail will discard the letter after reading the 1st paragraph & figuring out that you are criticizing the book.
At best you can expect a "thank you for your concern, would you like a free home Bible study?" form letter.
The days when the Society would actually attempt to defend their teachings to outsiders (or insiders for that matter) are long, long gone.