the weekly sales meeting this week, discusses whether or not Evolution is really Scientific. they go to the non reasoning book at page 121 Para 4 to page 126 para 2. has anyone critiqued this yet. any help would be very much appreciated. As usual they only show their side of the story and don't deal with facts as usual or theory as just that a theory.
Is evolution really scientific
by ssn587 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
leavingwt
Their argument boils down to this. . .
Unfortunately, once boiled, there's not enough gravy to cover a small piece of country-fried steak.
-
BurnTheShips
If someone could post the text, I'd love to critique.
By the way, how old is the Reasoning book now? It is so out of date where it comes to science!
BTS
-
bohm
*** rs p. 121 - p. 129 Evolution ***
Evolution
Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.
Is evolution really scientific?
The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?
The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.
“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.
What view does the fossil record support?
Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?
Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.
What does the fossil record actually show?
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.
Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?
Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.
The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.
What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.
“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.
“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.
Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?
“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”—The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.
But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.
Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his “grandfather’s day,” meaning that one’s entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term “day” to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus the ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.
For further details, see page 88.
If Someone Says—
‘I believe in evolution’
You might reply: ‘Do you believe that God had any hand in matters, or is it your belief that from the very start the development of life was strictly a matter of chance? (Then proceed on the basis of what the person says.)’
Or you could say: ‘It wouldn’t be realistic to reject something that has been fully proved to be a scientific fact, would it? . . . I have here some comments of scientists that are very interesting regarding this point. (Use material on pages 121, 122, under the subheading “Is evolution really scientific?” or on pages 122, 123, under “Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? . . . ”)’
Another possibility: ‘When there is solid evidence proving something, that is what we should all believe, isn’t it? . . . I recall in my school textbooks that pictures of fossils were provided to support evolution. But since then I have read some very interesting comments by scientists concerning the fossil record. I have some of them here. (Use material on pages 123, 124, under the subheading “What view does the fossil record support?”)’
An additional suggestion: ‘Am I right in concluding that you are a person who likes to face life the way it really is? . . . I do too.’ Then perhaps add: ‘If I walk in the countryside and find that some wood and stones have been shaped into a house, it should be obvious to me that someone was there before me and built it; right? . . . But, now, would it be logical for me to conclude that flowers growing alongside the house resulted just from chance? If I feel that way I need to look closely and notice the intricate design, because I know that it is a basic truth that where there is design there must be a designer. This is what the Bible tells us at Hebrews 3:4.’
Or you might answer (an older person): ‘One of the basic ideas in evolution is that it accounts for man’s progress, his development to what he is today, isn’t that right?’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘You are an individual who has lived quite some time. Do you remember how things were when you were a child? Was there as much crime as there is now? . . . Did you always have to keep the door locked? . . . Would you say that people back then showed greater concern for their neighbors, and for older folks, than they do today? . . . So, while there has been great progress in technical fields, humans themselves seem to be losing some of the qualities that count most. Why is this?’ (2) ‘I find that these realities of life that we have both observed agree with what is written here in the Bible at Romans 5:12. . . . So, really there has been a downhill trend.’ (3) ‘But the Bible shows how that will change. (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 21:3, 4)’
‘I believe that God created man by means of evolution’
You might reply: ‘I’ve talked with others who share your view. Am I right in concluding that you are a person who has strong faith in God? . . . So your faith really holds first place in your life; with it as a guide, you endeavor to evaluate other things, is that right? . . . That’s the way I view matters too.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘I know that if what I believe is really truth, it is not going to conflict with proved scientific facts. At the same time I know that it would be foolish for me to ignore what God’s Word says, because God knows much more about his works than any of us do. I’m impressed with what the Bible, God’s inspired Word, says here at Genesis 1:21 (emphasize “according to their kinds”).’ (2) ‘Then in Genesis 2:7 we learn that God formed man, not from earlier animals, but from the dust.’ (3) ‘And in verses 21, 22 we find that Eve was formed, not from an animal, but with one of Adam’s ribs as starting material.’
Or you could say: ‘(After establishing a common ground, as above . . . ) Some say that the Bible’s reference to Adam was just an allegory. But if that is true, to what conclusion does it lead?’ (1) ‘Well, notice what is stated here at Romans 5:19: “Just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one person [Jesus Christ] many will be constituted righteous.” Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” But if there really was no “one man” named Adam, then such a man never sinned. If he did not sin and pass an inheritance of sin on to his offspring, then there was no need for Christ to give his life on behalf of mankind. If Christ really did not give his life on our behalf, then there is no prospect for life beyond our present few years. That would mean that there actually is nothing left to Christianity.’ (2) ‘Yet, embodied in Christianity are the highest moral principles that can be found anywhere. Is it possible that the finest teachings as to truth and honesty could originate with something that is basically false?’ (See also pages 27-29, under the main heading “Adam and Eve.”)
‘But highly educated people believe it’
You might reply: ‘True, yet I have come to realize that even those who say they believe it may strongly disagree with others who believe in evolution. (Cite examples from material on pages 122, 123.) So, we must personally examine the evidence to see which we should believe—evolution or creation.’
Or you could say: ‘That’s true. And yet I have come to realize that there are other highly educated people who do not believe it.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Why the difference? They are all acquainted with the same evidence. Might motive enter the picture? Possibly.’ (2) ‘How can you decide which ones to believe? Well, viewing the group as a whole (and not criticizing individuals), which group do you believe would be the more honest—those who believe that man was created by God and so feel accountable to him, or those who say they are a product of chance and so are accountable only to themselves?’ (3) ‘So, then, we personally need to examine the evidence to see whether creation or evolution provides the most satisfying answers to life.’
-
bohm
FAIL at multiple levels:
1 - ignorant) confuse evolution and abiogenesis.
2 - stupid) critisism applies equally to plate tectonics and geology.
3 - plain wrong) evolution has been directly observed in laboratories and nature.
4 - dishonest) most of the quotes are examples of blatant quote mining.
-
Mad Sweeney
I like how their most recent quotes are TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OLD.
Yeah, science hasn't done squat for nearly three decades...
I know people personally who have observed evolution in their laboratories. They aren't making stuff up.
-
PSacramento
They take would some have said in regards to the ORGINS of evolution (which are unknown) and make it sound liek it is being said ABOUT the PROCESS of evolution.
Evolution is NOT about how we got here ( the first cell or whatever) but about how a species can get from A-K and what b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i and j are.
Or perhaps more correctly, how K got to W since it isn't applicable to A or Z as of right now anyways.
-
ziddina
Wow, thanks for posting that, Bohm...
As Mad Sweeney said... "I know people personally who have observed evolution in their laboratories. They aren't making stuff up. ..."
Just to cite one example - from Scientific American, a reliable publication in which many scientiests have been publishing their results in an easy-to-read format for the average citizen, there was an article some years back regarding a young female entymologist who was researching a species of short-lived beetles that live in the Pacific Northwest. [Sorry I don't have the article at my fingertips... It was in the smaller "News Scan" section - or something like it, not a featured article...] She stated that she was able to observe gradual progression of changes in the beetle species. Watching evolution in action...
If any of you are interested in checking out Scientific American magazine, here is its website: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammag/ The current issue celebrates their 165th year of publishing scientific advances... They started out in August, 1845 - imagine that!!! They are approximately THIRTY-FIVE years OLDER than the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society...!! And they have many excellent articles on the subject of evolution...
Many studies have been done on the changes in moth camoflauge in the vicinity of London, as the increase of coal-burning [in the Victorian era...] caused a change in the moths' environment. That is a classic example of evolution in action...
[I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but...]
I find it ironic that humans, who have had to 'stick-build' every tool and technological advancement within the last 10,000 years, are generally incapable of seeing beyond that limitation...
In other words, since humans have had to "build", to adapt quickly to their ever-changing environment, they assume that EVERYTHING ELSE must have been "built", too...
It's a pervasive mentality. One even sees scientists using terms such as "created, creating, built, made..." and so on... That "proto-human" part of our brain which first picked up a stick and found that they could sharpen it with a stone, is deeply embedded in our perceptions of the universe...
However, looking at human technology, one can see that human progress itself EVOLVES.
One might be able to use this on the weekly "Sales Meeting" attendees... If CREATION were the UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF PROGRESSION IN THE UNIVERSE, then the human invention of - say, the AUTOMOBILE - would NOT have gone through a series of gradual, forward steps!!!
Ol' Henry Ford's first "Model T" would have sprung, fully formed, with airbags and seat belts and "I"-bars in the doors and variable-speed windshield wipers and hi-lo lights and brake lights and brake sensors and turn signals - front AND back, and [you can keep going from there...] INCLUDED, when automobiles were first BUILT! [yeah, I know, Henry Ford didn't invent the first auto, but he's the most commonly known... We're dealing with JWs here...]
While we're on the subject, the origins of automobiles demonstrate that [evolutionary principle] new forms of life can spring from older life forms, producing offspring that are VERY DIFFERENT from their ancestors... Automobiles evolved from a combination of bicycles - and steam locomotives... Speaking of offspring looking drastically different from their predecessors, have any of these idiots ever looked at the history of dog breeds?? The breeding of animals to obtain desired characteristics is ANOTHER WAY IN WHICH HUMANS USE MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION...
And since they're EVER SO FOND of the idiotic "clock" analogy, point out to them that, If CREATION were the UNDERLYING SOURCE AND PRINCIPLE OF THE UNIVERSE, that digital watch on their wrist or that digital alarm clock that woke them up in the morning would NOT have gone through a gradual progression of forward steps!!! [You can throw out the name of "Benjamin Banneker", first gent to make a fully functioning clock in America, in the 1750's, if you wish... http://www.black-inventor.com/Benjamin-Banneker.asp ]
But, IF CREATIONISM were the 'underlying principle' of progression, in the universe, then ol' Benjamin would have produced a DIGITAL WRISTWATCH, instead - WITHOUT the intervening, gradual progression of improved "watch" forms!!
Aaaand you can apply that to most items that the human race uses - EVEN HAMMERS!! Remember, the first ever 'hammer' used by humans, was an unreliable bit of rock tied onto a stick with rawhide thongs... Whoops... Actually, it was just a rock...
Also, as I enjoy pointing out, RELIGION ITSELF EVOLVED. Which statement usually pisses off Christians - and in this instance I'm not talking about any "god" gene, either...
Looking at the primitive beginnings of religion and moving forward in time, one can see how belief systems evolved - or, as in the case of the three prominent Middle Eastern 'gods' being worshipped today, DEvolved...
I don't think that evolutionists are still using "mutations" as the primary driving force behind evolution, expecially when one can see that mere adaptation - the changes that occur to the human body under varying conditions - are VERY OBVIOUS, as any muscle-builder would tell you!
Humans themselves react to change by adapting physically. What do they think the underlying principle of a 'weight loss' program is, other than the body's adaptations as it modifies its physical existence to new conditions in its environment??? Look at people who've cleaned up their diets, gone on programs of regular exercise, increased the amount of water they consume, and have given up heavy drinking! [I threw that in, instead of smoking, because we all know where many JWs tend to over-indulge... ]
Such changes FORCE THE BODY TO ADAPT TO A NEW 'ENVIRONMENT', in effect - with RESULTING PHYSICAL CHANGES!!! And these are the sort of changes - modifications - that - in my opinion - drive evolution...
Zid
-
BurnTheShips
3 - plain wrong) evolution has been directly observed in laboratories and nature.
Well, maybe not back when this was written. This is 30 years old, just about.
BTS
-
the-illuminator81
Their argument boils down to this: It's really complex! So it could never have randomly sprung into existence.
And they are right, life is very complex, and it hasn't sprung into existence by mere chance. Like a snowflake however, the building blocks of life have formed because the circumstances were right. Then it took millions of years to get where we are today.
If evolution is not real, than how have the few hundred of animals in Noah's Ark grown into the millions of species we find today? You can't have it both ways!
