So I overheard a discussion that my son and wife were having about creation yesterday

by My Name is of No Consequence 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Oubliette

  John Aquila: Do you recall the publication or magazine where they acknowledge evolution? Thanks!

  No, off the top of my head I do not.

  But as I mentioned above, it wouldn't be an explicit "we believe in evolution" statement.

  I used to give several public talks on this subject and read everything by the WTBTS that I could get my hands on. It was clear that they understood that most people were confused about the differences between evolution and biogenesis (origins of life).

  Many of the society's publications clearly took advantage of this to create false dichotomies.
  

  For example, consider the title of the book, Life- How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?

  The very title sets up a false controversy. The real question should be: How did life get here, by direct creation by God or by purely natural means that do not require the existence of any kind of supreme/superior being?

  That doesn't exactly roll off of the tongue, but it more precisely frames the real issue: Is there a God or not?

  As I recall, the Reasoning book had a section on evolution that had a bit of verbal jiu-jistu by trying to confuse the householder with a question something like: "I find that different people mean different things by the word 'evolution.' What do you mean by it?"

  Simply put, evolution means: change over time. That is completely non-controversial and totally indisputable. We all know that the real debate is whether or not there is a God and all that that implies.
  
  
• 

  Oubliette

  JA: what nelim said!

  Here's a quote along those lines:

  "The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment. While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced." - Awake! January 2014, pp. 12-13

  But the same article also says this a few pages later:

  "To undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible."
  
  
• 

  Oubliette

  John Aquila, here is some more relevant WT obfuscation:
  

  Evolution-Myths and Facts:

  Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”

  However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.” - Was Life Created?, pp. 18-19
  
• 

  cappytan

  John:

  For more examples of the society acknowledging evolution while denying it at the same time, see the Aug 2015 cover article on the cell.

  Copy/pasted here in case you don't wish to click over:

  COVER SUBJECT

  Your Cells—Living Libraries!

  00:00

  00:00

  IN 1953, molecular biologists James Watson and Francis Crick published a discovery that was critical to our scientific understanding of life. They had discovered the double-helical structure of DNA. * This threadlike substance—mostly found in the nucleus of cells—contains encoded, or “written,” information, making cells living libraries, as it were. This amazing discovery opened up a new era in biology! But what purpose is served by the “writing” in cells? More intriguing, how did it get there?

  WHY CELLS NEED INFORMATION

  Have you ever wondered how a seed becomes a tree or how a fertilized egg becomes a human? Have you ever wondered how you inherited your traits? The answers involve the information found in DNA.

  

  Nearly all cells have DNA, complex molecules that resemble long twisted ladders. In the human genome, or our complete set of DNA, the ladders have approximately three billion chemical “rungs.” Scientists call these rungs base pairs because each rung is made up of two chemical substances, of which there are four altogether. Using the first letter of each, these substances are abbreviated A, C, G, and T—a simple, four-letter alphabet, as it were. * In 1957, Crick proposed that it is the linear sequence of the chemical rungs that forms coded instructions. In the 1960’s, that code began to be understood.

  Information, whether in the form of pictures, sounds, or words, can be stored and processed in many ways. Computers, for example, do this all digitally. Living cells store and process information chemically, DNA being the key compound. DNA is passed on when cells divide and organisms reproduce—abilities that are considered defining characteristics of life.

  How do cells use information? Think of DNA as a collection of recipes, each one involving step-by-step processes, with each step carefully scripted in precise terms. But instead of the end result being a cake or a cookie, it might be a cabbage or a cow. In living cells, of course, the processes are fully automated, adding yet another layer of complexity and sophistication.

  The information in a bacterial cell would fill a 1,000-page book

  Genetic information is stored until it is needed, perhaps to replace worn out or diseased cells with healthy new ones or to pass on traits to offspring. How much information does DNA hold? Consider one of the smallest organisms, bacteria. German scientist Bernd-Olaf Küppers stated: “Carried over to the realm of human language, the molecular text describing the construction of a bacterial cell would be about the size of a thousand-page book.” For good reason, chemistry professor David Deamer wrote: “One is struck by the complexity of even the simplest form of life.” How does the genome of a human compare? “[It] would fill a library of several thousand volumes,” says Küppers.

  DNA—Key Dates

  • 1869 Chemist Friedrich Miescher identified what we now call deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.

  • Early 1900’s Biochemist Phoebus Levene discovered the order of certain chemical components of DNA and how these combine to form a chainlike molecule.

  • 1950 Biochemist Erwin Chargaff discovered that the composition of DNA varies among species.

  • 1953 Scientists James Watson and Francis Crick described the double-helical structure of DNA.

  “WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND”

  To describe the writing in DNA as “molecular-genetic language” is more than “mere metaphor,” says Küppers. “Like human language,” he points out, “the molecular-genetic language also possesses a syntactic dimension.” Put simply, DNA has a “grammar,” or set of rules, that strictly regulates how its instructions are composed and carried out.

  The “words” and “sentences” in DNA make up the various “recipes” that direct the production of proteins and other substances that form the building blocks of the various cells that make up the body. For example, the “recipe” might guide the production of bone cells, muscle cells, nerve cells, or skin cells. “The filament of DNA is information, a message written in a code of chemicals, one chemical for each letter,” wrote evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. “It is almost too good to be true, but the code turns out to be written in a way that we can understand.”

  The Bible writer David said in prayer to God: “Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; all its parts were written in your book.” (Psalm 139:16) Of course, David was using poetic language. Nevertheless, in principle, he was right on the mark, which is typical of the Bible writers. None were even slightly influenced by the fanciful folklore or mythology of other ancient peoples.—2 Samuel 23:1, 2; 2 Timothy 3:16.

  

  How does a child inherit traits from its parents?

  HOW DID THE WRITING GET THERE?

  As is often the case, when scientists explain one mystery, they open a door to another. That was true regarding the discovery of DNA. When it was understood that DNA contains coded information, thoughtful people asked, ‘How did the information get there?’ Of course, no human observed the formation of the first DNA molecule. So we have to draw our own conclusions. Even so, these conclusions need not be speculative. Consider the following comparisons.

  • In 1999, fragments of very ancient pottery with unusual markings, or symbols, were found in Pakistan. The marks still remain undeciphered. Nevertheless, they are considered man-made.

  • A few years after Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, two physicists proposed searching for coded radio signals from space. Thus began the modern-day search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

  The point? People attribute information to intelligence, whether that information is in the form of symbols on clay or signals from space. They do not need to see the information being created to draw that conclusion. Yet, when the most sophisticated code known to man—the chemical code of life—was discovered, many shoved that logic aside, attributing DNA to mindless processes. Is that reasonable? Is it consistent? Is it scientific? A number of respected scientists say no. These include Dr. Gene Hwang and Professor Yan-Der Hsuuw. * Consider what they say.

  Dr. Gene Hwang studies the mathematical basis of genetics. At one time he believed in evolution, but his research changed his view. “The study of genetics,” he told Awake! “provides insight into the mechanisms of life—an insight that fills me with awe for the Creator’s wisdom.”

  Professor Yan-Der Hsuuw is the director of embryo research at Taiwan’s National Pingtung University of Science and Technology. He too once believed in evolution—until his research led him to conclude otherwise. Regarding cell division and specialization, he said: “The right cells must be produced in the right order and at the right places. First they assemble into tissues that will in turn assemble themselves into organs and limbs. What engineer can even dream of writing instructions for such a process? Yet the instructions for embryo development are superbly written in DNA. When I consider the beauty of it all, I’m convinced that life was designed by God.”

  

  Gene Hwang (left) and Yan-Der Hsuuw

  DOES IT MATTER?

  Justice says yes! If God created life, then God deserves the credit, not evolution. (Revelation 4:11) Also, if we are the work of an all-wise Creator, then we are here for a reason. That would not be so if life were a result of undirected processes. *

  Indeed, thinking people long for satisfying answers. “Man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life,” said Viktor Frankl, who was a professor of neurology and psychiatry. To put it another way, we have a spiritual hunger that we yearn to satisfy—a hunger that makes sense only in the light of special creation. But if we are the handiwork of God, did he give us the means to satisfy our spiritual need?

  Jesus Christ answered that question, saying: “Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah’s [or, God’s] mouth.” (Matthew 4:4) Jehovah’s words, which are recorded in the Bible, have satisfied the spiritual hunger of millions, giving meaning to their lives and providing them with a hope for the future. (1 Thessalonians 2:13) May the Bible do the same for you. At the very least, this unique book merits your consideration.

  Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

  What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

  1. Be observable

  2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

  3. Make accurate predictions

  In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”
• 

  My Name is of No Consequence

  Thank you all for the suggestions and information!
• 

  redvip2000

  "The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment."

  If i ever saw a strawman.... No mention of how variation is a result of genetic mutations within a specie. Instead they say something like "well a donkey breeds with a horse, and the offspring can't procreate, so there you go" ... what incredible ignorance.
  
• 

  MarkSutter

  he is my stepson and my wife has legal authority in virtually all of the decisions that involve him

  And that's why you should stay out of it unless you discuss it with her first. If someone tried that behind my back backstabbing bullshit that you're talking about with one of my child, I'd kick your ass to the curb. You'd be out of my life that's a fact.
  

  I'm an atheist and believe we are constantly evolving, so that's not the point.

  It's not about the subject matter, it's about crossing boundaries. It's none of your business unless the mother says so.

  I apologize if this sounds harsh.
  
• 

  sir82

  Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

  That's just... I mean, it's....but....words fail me.

  That's even a step beyond "that's so bad it's not even wrong".

  "Evolution - not a theory, but a grand global conspiracy, involving complicit agreement between millions of scientists over the course of centuries".

  Even "9/11 truthers" & Obama birth certificate nut-jobs would label that idea as too far-fetched.

  The idea is so spectacularly asinine, I doubt the dullards in the WTS writing department could come up with it. Is it some sort of new creationist straw-grasp?

  EDIT:

  Found the answer on my own:

  https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-not-even-theory/
  
• 

  Vidiot

  sir82 - "Found the answer on my own."

  Didn't take long, did it?

  x

  Another consideration, people...

  ...due to the sheer number of Young-Earthers out there (both in the US and the rest of the world), successfully and legitimately proving creationism - via firm evidence - would be ludicrously profitable (not to mention historically game-changing), regardless of any alleged and crazy-ass conspiracy to suppress said evidence.

  Just for that single fact alone, if there were a way to do it, I think it'd have been done by now.
• 

  My Name is of No Consequence

  @ MarkSutter:

  Let me tell you something. Even though he is my stepson, my only son, I am the only father he has ever really known. I love him dearly. If you think that I am going to allow him to be completely sucked into this "religion" while I do nothing about it is ridiculous. I wish someone encouraged me to think for myself and to do research at his age! It is not about boundaries, it is about what is right!

  If a stepfather knew that his stepson was being molested, should he just look the other way because of the word "step"? Brilliant.