Glaring terminological inexactitudes in this week's Watchtower study farticle!!

by Island Man 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Check out the Watchtower's erroneous definitions/descriptions of Evolution and Creationism in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively on page 7 of the October 15, 2013 Watchtower:

    "In its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously. . ."

    "On the other hand, fundamentalists of Christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old. Those who teach this doctrine - known as creationism - may have high regard for the Bible, but they contend that God created all things in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago."

    Are they accurately describing the teachings of evolution and creationism. Aren't JWs creationists according to the standard dictionary definition of the term? Does the theory of evolution really teach that all life came into existence spontaneously?

  • Island Man
  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    There is nothing especially wrong with the Watchtower's comments there, however they are also obviously 'creationists' just not the orthodox kind.

    'Spontaneous' seems a fair word to describe fundamentally what evolution teaches about the origin of life:

    spon·ta·ne·ous (spn-tn-s)

    adj. 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. 2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint. 3. Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior. 4. Growing without cultivation or human labor.


    [From Late Latin spontneus , of one's own accord, from Latin sponte ; see (s)pen- in Indo-European roots.]
  • Daniel1555
    Daniel1555

    The theory of evolution does not say a word, that there is no God or no creator (only atheists and fundamentalists in the scientific world say that). Darwin did never say that there is no creator. He even ended his work "Origin of Species..." with the words:

    "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    '" 'Spontaneous' seems a fair word to describe fundamentally what evolution teaches about the origin of life"

    yadda yadda 2, I take your point about the definition of the word spontaneous. However, the theory of evolution does not address the question of the origin of life. It only explains how we arrive at the great diversity and complexity of life from a common, *already living* ancestor. The question of the origin of life is tackled by another subject - abiogenesis.

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    Technically you're right Island Man. The theory of evolution is a model for the origin of species not the origin of life, although Darwin did suggest that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

    Both theories in their modern form exclude any external supernatural agent. Evolutionary scientists today don't support Darwin's statement that a creator originally started it all off.

  • Daniel1555
    Daniel1555

    Both theories in their modern form exclude any external supernatural agent. Evolutionary scientists today don't support Darwin's statement that a creator originally started it all off.

    Modern science cannot prove or disprove a creator who might have started evolutionary processes. There are a lot of scientists who believe in a creator who started evolutionary processes (for example Francis Collins director of Human Genom Project).

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    farticle

    Hilarious! That will be going in the next edition of the Apostate Dictionary.

    Here's more info about Darwin's comment about a Creator.

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    There are a lot of scientists who believe in a creator who started evolutionary processes (for example Francis Collins director of Human Genom Project).

    My undergrad biology professor believed in both God and evolution, i.e., God used evolution to create. She had full faith that she would be united in heaven with her deceased parents.

  • Cadellin
    Cadellin

    Evolution, in its simplest terms, refers to a change in the gene pool of a species. That's it. As a scientific theory, it does not directly address origin of life questions. It does what a scientific theory is supposed to do: Explain a range of physical phenomenon. However, in order for natural selection to work (for a change in the gene pool to spread throughout a species), life at some early point had to have the capacity to (1) adapt and (2) pass on changes to subsequent generations. It seems reasonable that these commonalities would have arisen very very early.

    "Spontaneous" in this WT "definition" of evolution will lead to JWs imagining a modern cell popping into existence all on its own. I virtually guarantee that's what will be in most Witness minds when this is studied. Yet the fact of the matter is that any "spontaneous" generation of life would have happened over hundreds of millions of years and the very first stages would likely have been nothing that we would identify as life in the modern sense. Interestingly (as a side point), it seems that life appeared relatively early in earth's timeline)

    This (horribly inaccurate and misleading) WT also descrives evolution as "human reasoning." This is a trigger phrase, shutting down critical examination or reflection, since it immediately "brands" the notion as human "philosophy" which is tantamount to "teachings of demons." The fact is that Newton's Laws of Motion are "human reasoning," just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, theories of electromagnetism, economic theories of supply and demand, etc. These are all "human reasonings" supported by (in the case of evolution) literally reams of diverse yet convergent evidence from genetics, geology, paleontology, zoology, and a host of other fields that I cannot summon at the moment, and proven over and over and over by new discoveries.

    It's terribly ironic that the WT is pointing fingers at young earth creationists when they themselves are just another flavor--old earth creationists and the evidence for an old earth (which JWs believe) overlaps with the same evidence for evolution (which they reject). The belief in six literal days of creation is just as farcical as the belief in figurative creative days lasting "thousands" of years, as JWs believe, since both camps are rejecting evidence that, in this year 2013, is as close to irrefutable as we can get.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit