A point which virtually every JW will miss in this week's book study

by sir82 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Apognophos

  Neve say never, I firmly believe there are many trapped in the BOrg that have their doubts. IMO it's not just what you try and teach them it's how you teach them, and searching for truly doubting ones.

  Okay, that's a fair point. There are those who might (even subconsciously) wish that they didn't have to believe what they do, or wish that they didn't have to deny so much of modern science, and simply haven't heard the right information that can free them from their intellectual prison.

  That's actually how it was for me. About ten years ago, I studied evolution and contrasted it with arguments for creationism (scientific ones, not the Society's limited attempts) because I wanted to get to the bottom of the matter once and for all. I didn't want to deny evolution if it was sufficiently proven. In the end, I didn't encounter any killer arguments in favor of evolution back then; I decided that the debate was a draw because each side could argue ad infinitum down to the smallest detail and a conclusion would never be reached.

  Since then, I've learned about much more evidence, like our broken vitamin C gene, and ERVs that correspond with our simian relatives. But at one time, I wanted to know the truth but really just couldn't see enough evidence in favor of evolution to convince me to change sides.

  I'm beginning to suspect that more and more creationists are quietly conceding victory (either subconsciously or otherwise); it's just gotten way too difficult to refute the evidence in favor of evolution without resorting to rhetoric, semantics, or plain old intellectual dishonesty.

  To a degree, I might agree with you, but remember, it's not hard to refute evidence if you stop up your ears and sing "la la la". It doesn't matter how much evidence is piling up against your views if you are adept at ignoring it. We've seen on this very forum just how ignorant some creationists are about what evolution actually is, and how genes work, etc. So they were never playing on the same field as you were, by the same rules, to begin with. That's what makes it easy to keep believing in creationism.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  I am still new to all this evolution stuff. So, let me see if I am getting this.... The WTBTS says that evolution as described in the dictionary is false, yet just a few species on the ARK made all the millions of species today in just thousands of years? So super-inbreeding took place...??? Did all the animal daughters steal some of Noah's wine and get their dad's drunk?? Is that perhaps where Lot's daughters got the idea???

  Evidently, an animal cannot evolve into something over millions of years, but it can inbreed [ which leads to genetic disorders and death ] and super-"adapt" [ they won't say evolve because of Cog dis.]?!?!!! I am really shocked at the stupidity of it all. They want to be right soooo bad that they will make up anything!!

  DD
• 

  Apognophos

  Let me explain this (incorrect) belief a bit better. The idea behind micro-evolution is that animals have a range of expression built into their genes, and species are something which are formed by the differences within that range. The range is God-determined and cannot be violated; it is simply a range allowed so that the animal can survive in changing conditions. While there is such a thing as a range of gene expression (see epigenetics), it is quite apart from evolution theory.

  What creationists like JWs reject, and how they separate macro- from micro-evolution, is that there can ever be new information that can be introduced into genes which serves any beneficial purpose and allows new features to develop. So, whereas many species are actually quite similar to other species and therefore could be grouped into a "kind", the animals that have some substantially different feature must be a different kind. So it's a self-serving definition, and because it cannot be pinned down, no one can say, "Look, this is the exact, universally-agreed-upon list of kinds, and this is how much space they and their food would take up on the ark. You can see that this is impossible."

  The actual process of new information coming into an animal's genome is well-documented and understood, but the Society will never acknowledge that. What they do acknowledge, in so many words, are natural selection and microevolution; just not the ability of nature to form new kinds of animals through beneficial mutation. I think if someone searches the Library CD-ROM for "microevolution", they should see what I'm talking about.
• 

  disposable hero of hypocrisy

  Marking the FLIP outta this thread.
• 

  Vidiot

  Apognophos – "There are those who might (even subconsciously) wish that they didn't have to believe what they do, or wish that they didn't have to deny so much of modern science, and simply haven't heard the right information that can free them from their intellectual prison. That's actually how it was for me."

  Ditto; we were all experiencing WT-filtered and biased info.

  Apognophos – "I didn't want to deny evolution if it was sufficiently proven."

  Neither did I; with me (and I suspect many other former creationists that are quietly conceding victory), I think I was more afraid that evolution might be true; because if it was, the WTS was seriously wrong about something major (there’s a number of other disturbing implications evolution has for WT theology), and therefore I would no longer - in good conscience - be able to affiliate myself with it.

  So it was really a fear of having to leave the WTS and be ostracized (obviously, I’ve since gotten over that fear - us faders have got to be the GB's biggest irritation).

  Apognophos – "…it's not hard to refute evidence if you stop up your ears and sing 'la la la'."

  That's refusing, not refuting , which is, by now, what most creationist institutions are essentially reduced to.

  In fact, that aspect of creationism is what really helped me the rest of the way over the fence; realizing that even passive refusal to examine evidence you don't want to hear is - at its core - fundamentally dishonest.

  Which I simply could not be; the opposite was (ironically, due to my upbringing) just too ingrained in me.

  If you have to cheat to defend your worldview, your worldview doesn’t deserve to be defended.

  If - at this point - creationism can only be shored up by dirty lawyer tactics (i.e., rhetoric, semantics, misrepresentation, and the wilful ignorance/suppression of evidence), that fact alone calls its legitimacy into question, as far as I'm concerned.
• 

  wallsofjericho

  that stupid quote is over a 150 years old! I don't think Origin of the Species was even published when this assine "kinds" statement was made is some religious "science journal"
• 

  minimus

  lol...u still go to the book study?
• 

  nonjwspouse

  marked