Hello - I am new here .. just joined a couple of days ago, and have enjoyed the bit of lurking that I have done. A breif history, I was raised as a JW, was active until I was 36, and was a Regular Pioneer for 7 years and a Ministerial Servant for 5 years, and was one when I left. My reasons for leaving are not important at this point, but I have spent the last year or so researching the Flood and more extensively the theory of evolution.
I have finally decided to broach the topic with my mother since after all this time, the last of my JW friends and my brother and sister have all decided that they should shun me now, and I want to make a last ditch effort to convey to my mother that I didn't leave the organization so I could do lines of coke off a cheap hooker, but because I actually believe that this is not the truth.
I'd love some feedback on the email and what you think the possibility of it actually breaking through the "permafrost" created by the society. I'd also like to thank several people on this forum ( during my lurking stage) that helped me formulate my thoughts on this.
--
Cheers!
Stephen
Twitter / @darthweef
Facebook / StephenJohnson
<Email Starts>
Mom -
I have recently been doing a fair amount of reading and research on the topics of evolution and the origin of life. Realize please, that I am not using known “apostate” literature in this research. I am simply reading the societies materials on it, and cross referencing that with the scientific documentation that they refer to. I do this in harmony with the scripture at Proverbs 14:15. I have finished reading the latest brochures from the society on the topic – Was Life Created and The Origin of Life, and have skimmed through the Creation book. I had some topics I wanted to ask you about. Please bear in mind that my point is not to start a fight or even a debate, but honestly just want to get your feedback on some issues that I have, since my pool of people in the organization that will speak with me is obviously limited. I have in the past tried to discuss some of this with Jim, since he was calling on a fairly regular basis, but his dogmatic regurgitation of “mothers” incorrect information and refusal to address even the most basic of evidences leaves the conversation very frustrating. I have always found you to be a honest student of science, and someone who enjoys researching topics, so I feel like you will at least take the time to verify and formulate an opinion of the issues that I have with these publications, and the idea of creationism as a whole.
However, please feel free to just delete this email, and not respond if this is not a conversation that you are comfortable having, or if you just plain don’t want to have it. I would completely understand and won’t take offense.
First, my initial problem with these publications is that they very clearly do not understand what the theory of Evolution even is. They lump the concept of abiogenesis into the theory of evolution, when that is not an accurate representation of the theory. The theory of evolution in no way attempts to answer the question of the origin of life. Evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life, not how the first cells formed. Biological evolution requires that some self-replicating genetic material already exists, going from that basis, it then describes how variation and natural selection can lead to improvements in these molecules and eventually lead to the types of life that we see today on the planet. The topic that the society is addressing in The Origin of Life (specifically the first two sections) is the field of abiogenesis, which is an extremely young field with a very basic framework of established thought on how and why the first genes may have formed. It is not, however, on the same level as the current understandings that we have on the variation of life through evolution. Ultimately, at this point, the issue of how the original cells came into existence is not really important, as evolution very clearly & very accurately defines the pattern of speciation throughout the history of this planet leading up to the current state we find it in, and that pattern is in direct conflict with the ideas set out in the biblical version of creation.
Another issue that came to mind is the constant feeling that I get from the publications that they want me to believe that evolution is some controversial theory among the scientific community. A very basic look at the general consensus of the scientific community patently refutes this viewpoint. Evolution is considered a scientific fact. These publications try to make it seem that the word theory seems to mean that they are just guessing. Theory is defined this way : a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Example: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. The only groups that believe this theory to be “controversial” are creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. I would propose that it is not even possible to find a single respected scientist in any of the accepted fields surrounding evolution that would attempt to refute the theory as being anything other then sound and correct.
Which, actually brings me to another issue, and this issue is the one that I find most disturbing. In my readings of the Creation book, a few Watchtower articles on evolution and these two publications, I was shocked to find that the quotes that are used are very often misrepresented, taken out of context, or are flat out just not true. This leads me to think that there is underlying agenda being pushed at the cost of actual truth and honesty. Given that a large part of my life was spent in the studies of these truths, and my recent rejection of them being valid has left me being shunned by many people, I find this to be highly offensive. I submit a couple of examples. Francis Hitching is often quoted by the society as an evolutionist, and is presented as though he has made some scientific contribution to the field. In reality, Francis Hitching is a British author, journalist and filmmaker; he is also a parapsychologist and a dowser. If you don’t know what a dowser is, I didn’t, it’s someone who uses divination to find water. He is also the author of several books that posit that we get powerful positive energy from crystals and mayan temples. I would dare say that if a witness was discovered reading his parapsychology books, that they would likely be strongly counseled by the brothers, yet the society sees fit to label him an expert and quote from his book, and what about that book. In my brief perusal of this book, in the acknowledgments he claims to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, which has publically stated that he is NOT a member. He also claims to have received assistance in writing this book from an actually respected evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins who states "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years." So, not only is he a “Practitioner of Divination”, he’s a liar! Despite this, the society feels justified in using him as a source of spiritual food at the proper time.
In another, what I would consider egregious, misrepresentation the WLC brochure quotes heavily from the writings of Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig. Lonnig is a Jehovah’s Witness, but nowhere does it say that in the brochure. Why hide that fact? If they felt that his education and status in the scientific community was valid enough to be quoted in the publication, why should it matter? As it turns out, his standing in the scientific community is fact highly questionable. The book he is known for writing did not undergo peer review, was not published through a respected scientific publishing house, but instead was self published through a pay-to-publish Indian service. His employer, Max Planck Gesellschaft, was apparently very embarrassed when he published, on their website, several creationist essays which were subsequently pulled and apologized for. This is likely the reason why the society had to include a disclaimer noting that Lonnig’s opinions are not shared nor should they be associated with the MPG.
I could go on and on and on .. And believe me, looking up the various scientists and philosophers that have been quoted, while exhausting and time consuming was pretty easy. Many of them have even publically spoken out against the Society, and the Discovery Institute ( a ID institution in Seattle that are proponents of teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom ) for misquoting and misrepresenting their works. It would seem to me that they feel that the society is going out of their way to present ideas, using those scientists, that are not being presented by those scientists. I feel like this can not be understated as this is no longer just an issue of an organization actually believing that the account in Genesis is a scientific fact, that can be backed up by our current understanding of the natural world, as these publications are trying to state, but is instead an organization that is furthering an agenda that it knows to be in conflict with understood science and reason. That makes the whole situation far more malicious in my opinion.
Lastly, and I will leave it at this since this already far longer then I expected it to be .. Leaving off all the creationist debates against evolution and looking simply at the accepted timeline that Genesis lays out, which is 6000 years ago mankind was created, how can we take that and reconcile it with the established facts that “civilized” man has been around for 10s or 100s of thousands of years .. Also extremely easy to verify through science. For example, Sumerian culture is dated back 6000+ years. There are temples that have been discovered at Gobekly Tepe that are around 11,000 year old. Cave paintings in the south of France that are roughly 25,000 years old. In Spain there are cave drawings that go back 30,000+ years. Australian Aboriginal cultures date back more the 60,000 years. The Berekhat Ram figurine dates back over 200,000 years and is thought to have been made by Homo Erectus, not even Homo Sapiens.
Sources for the above information:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/spotted-horses-in-cave-art-werent-just-a-figment-dna-shows.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21458-first-neanderthal-cave-paintings-discovered-in-spain.html
http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/introduction.shtml
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/75258e92a5903e75ca2569de0025c188?OpenDocument
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/readings/Berekhat_Ram.pdf
This also, obviously, calls into question the validity of a global flood, but we can save that for a later discussion.
I am genuinely interested in hearing how you can reconcile these facts in your own belief of creation, and am not trying to start an argument with you or anything like that. My decision to leave the organization was not an easy one, and in the process I have researched these issues for one simple reason. If Jehovah exists, and if he is the omnipotent creator of this earth and the universe, then OF COURSE I want to worship him and benefit from the seemingly beneficial ruler ship he would provide. However, if he is all those things, then human reason, logic and the ability to understand the natural world ( all things he would have had to have given us ) should be able to provide some evidence that the Genesis account is accurate, and honestly I am just not seeing it.
Feel free to call me anytime, and I look forward to seeing you soon!
</Email Ends>