--Lots of funny stuff in the 1969 article:
"It is understandable that this question might arise, for as things stand now many animals do kill one another for food. But please note that this is as things stand now. Is there anyone on the earth who can say from personal observation how these animals acted six thousand years ago?"
The lack of human witnesses to events of 6,000 years ago would apply with equal force to the claim of an all vegetarian ecology. But the reality is we don't need eyewitnesses to form valid conclusions because of the wealth of evidence at hand, so this is a logical fallacy in the form of a false dilemma. Like Adam points out above, this is pretty idiotic.
"Throughout the earth humans kill animals and eat their flesh. But does man’s ability to chew and digest meat prove that all men eat meat or that men have always eaten meat? No, for God’s Word, the oldest and most reliable history of mankind, shows that originally Jehovah gave man “all vegetation bearing seed” and “every tree on which there is the a fruit of a tree bearing seed” as food. It was not until over sixteen hundred years later that God permitted a change of diet for man, allowing him to hunt animals for food.—Gen. 1:29; 9:2, 3."
--Invalid comparison. Humans do not have the dental design of a carnivore. Carivores essentially swallow their food whole and the function of the cheek teeth is simply to cut flesh into pieces small enough to be swallowed.
Humans manage to eat meat without any of that. We tend to select only the most tender pieces of meat. We usually destroy the elasticity by cooking. We often cut the flesh into pieces small enough to be swallowed using tools (i.e. Knives and forks) And we grind the meat up into a mushy pulp prior to swallowing just as if we were eating vegetation. So what humans are and are not capable of eating via intelligence and culinary arts has nothing whatsoever to do with animal diet.
"True, those who believe that man and animals evolved over a period of millions of years might not accept this, but it is what the Word of God says, and Jesus Christ said, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) If the present diet and mode of life of humans does not represent what it originally was, is it not possible that the same is true of animals?"
Another false dilemma. This is not an evolution vs. creation debate. Plenty of Christians who believe in creation do not accept the JW interpretations of Genesis and Isaiah.
"We must keep in mind that scientists are limited in their knowledge. Even if a man is an authority in some field of animal life, he does not know all there is to know about an animal as it now lives, to say nothing about how it lived thousands of years in the past. Those who are humble and sincere admit this. The very fact that scientists have different opinions proves the point."
Appeal to ignorance and yet another false dilemma. This is not a question of whether one knows everything there is to know on the subject of zoology or not. This is a question of whether animals eat what they are obviously designed to eat or not.
"For instance, the question came up as to whether cobras can hear sounds. On November 27, 1968, an Associate Curator of Reptiles at one of the large zoological gardens in the United States wrote: “All snakes are unable to hear sounds; this also includes the Cobra.” That seems quite final. However, on the very same day the Curator and Chairman of the Department of Herpetology at the AmericanMuseum of Natural History explained: “It has been generally assumed . . . that snakes are deaf to air-borne sounds. Recent evidence has it, though, that some snakes can hear low-pitched sounds. How this relates to the cobra problem is uncertain. The weight of evidence is still in favor of the theory that it is movement rather than sound that influences the cobras, but the matter certainly is not closed.”
The Bible long ago indicated that the cobra hears the “voice of charmers,” but could refuse to listen just as a human can refuse to hear. (Ps. 58:4, 5) Would it be wise to reject what the Bible says just because some scientists think the facts to be otherwise? The above quotations show that the answer is, No. Similarly, that certain current evidence does not seem to support what the Bible says about animal life in the past should not cause one to reject God’s inspired Word."
Non sequitor, poisoning the well, etc.
"Another thing, is one justified in concluding that the way an animal uses its body today is the only possible way? As an example, a tiger uses its fangs and claws to catch, kill and tear apart other animals. Yet, could not these same fangs and claws be used in tearing apart heavy vegetation and ripping off husks and shells?"
Three errors here.
First, this ascribes a level of intelligence to animals that in the vast majority of cases does not exist. Does the African devil's flower (A species of mantid) know at an intellectual level of its resemblance to a flower? Does it say to itself, "I bet I can fool that stupid butterfly if I hang upside down and don't move?" --Almost certainly not. We're talking about an insect.
Second, snakes and spiders have fangs. Mammals have incisors, canines, pre-molars and molars.
Third, the example of the teeth and claws of a tiger is the fallacy of reductionism. We could, perhaps argue what exactly an airplane propeller is really meant to do if the propeller by itself is all we had. But the function becomes self evident when we look at an airplane as a whole from nose to tail.
--Same with cats. The function of the claws and teeth becomes self evident when the animal is evaluated as a whole.
It's most interesting that this was actually one of the early arguments against Darwin. The French naturalist, Georges Cuvier countered what he perceived to be the reductionism inherent in evolution thus:
"That the claws may seize the prey, they must have a certain mobility in the talons, a certain strength in the nails, whence will result determinate formations in all the claws, and the necessary distribution of muscles and tendons, it will be necessary that the fore-arm have a certain facility of turning, whence again will result determinate formation in the bones which compose it; but the bone of the fore-arm articulating in the shoulder-bone, cannot change its structure without this latter also changes."
Even today, this is a cornerstone of the design equals a designer argument. It is absolutely astounding that JW writers would so blithely reject it.
‘But what about poisonous snakes?’ someone may ask. Animal poisons might appear to be just for killing or protection, but are they? In “Animal Poisoners” H. Munro Fox wrote: “In some cases we know that poisons play a role in the functioning of the body of the animal which manufactures them. In many instances this may be the real raison d’être [reason for existence] of the venoms, quite apart from any protective value. The poisonous spittle of snakes, for example, has work to do in the digestion of the snake’s food.” Another illustration is a certain green marine worm that is partly covered with a poisonous slime. Is this poison to protect it from being eaten? It might seem so. Yet if the young of this worm settle on this slime, the poison changes them into microscopic males instead of the large females they would have developed into if they settled on the sea floor.
More reductionism. The function of snake venom becomes self evident when it is considered along with the delivery system, including the hollow fangs, striking reflex, articulation of the jawbone, the existence of heat sensing organs in many species, the snakes instincts, tastes and dietary needs.
It is true that hundreds or even thousands of problem cases might be brought up, ones that apparently indicate that animals always killed one another, that this is necessary for the “balance of nature.” But should our lack of complete knowledge of God’s creation cause us to lose faith in him and his Word? Should we let questions about preying animals prey on us?
Perhaps not, but the willingness of JW writers to reject the building blocks of I.D. when it's convenient should give any thinking JW pause...
The Bible explains that in the paradise in Eden God gave to “every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens . . . all green vegetation for food.” (Gen. 1:30) Later all of the basic kinds of land animals lived in Noah’s ark for a whole year without devouring one another. And evidently drawing on the conditions that existed in Eden and that will be restored in the future, God’s Word says: “The cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra . . . They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain.”—Isa. 11:7-9.
Yet another false dilemma. A JW does not need to chose between believing 'God's word' or not in this case. This is a question of what a believer should take literally and what they should understand as metaphorical.
In that vein, there is a big difference between hay and straw as any farm boy (Or girl) could tell you. Cattle actually can't and don't subsist upon straw. Straw is only properly fed to cattle as a filler component of a mixed ration. Additionally, the last time I checked, 'dust' is not a viable food for snakes. So a good argument can be made that the restoration prophecies of Isaiah should not be taken literally.
"Surely the grand Creator who made the heavens and all that is in them, who arranged the perfect balance and order of the stars and who knows how harmony and peace existed in Eden, can restore paradise conditions. Bringing about a “balance of nature” wherein animals do not kill one another is not beyond His ability, is it? So, let us look forward to that time with confidence and trust."
If one believes in God, then it would have to be conceded that He can pretty much do anything. But that is again, wide of the point and the last in a long and colorful series of false delimmas.
When Jehovah of the Bible questions Job, he specifically mentions the hunting abilities of big cats:
"Can you hunt prey for a lion itself and can you satisfy the lively appetite of young lions, when they crouch in the hiding places or keep lying in the covert for an ambush?"
And eagles:
"From there it has to search for food; far into the distance its eyes keep looking. And its young ones themselves keep sipping up blood; and where the slain are, there it is."
The real question is not whether God could create or recreate "Paradise conditions." The real question is whether these conditions ever existed, or whether they are simply the misinterpretion of a bunch of ignorant city boys in Brooklyn. If those conditions did exist, one has to wonder why God would take credit in front of Job for things he didn't actually do and never intended?