by LAWHFol 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
David Jay,
Appreciate your post. Particularly when you discuss the terminology behind theory and fact. Could one say the theory of evolution is factual? I have personally seen the fossils of animals we recognize today in their early evolutionary processes. Also, I totally agree with you on Wikipedia information. I avoid any info from that source like the plague. One source for research I do prefer is google scholar.
Theories are what is comprehended about what can be seen, tested, validated via the scientific process. You can thus say that the model best expresses the facts as we know them, but you cannot call the model a "scientific fact."
In other words "theories" are verifiable conclusions based on evidence or explanations of the facts before us, but they are not the facts of which they are made.
Chocolate is an ingredient in Devil's Food cake, but chocolate is not itself Devil's Food or vice versa.
Just remembered a buddy's explanation, which was one of the best I ever heard:
"Theories are made up of facts as they are verified conclusions regarding the facts. Facts alone are not conclusions and thus are not scientific theories. Facts never change and cannot be changed, but our comprehension about verified conclusions can grow sharper and richer, and thus they are subject to change."
We are of course talking about "scientific theory," not "theory" which in the common vernacular is used as a synonym for "hypothesis" or "educated guess."
You see, this is why the JWs so ADAMANTLY refute the evolutionist theory.
If Evolution can be proven 100% beyond any shred of doubt, their entire belief system collapses in on itself.
I would have to agree strongly, Beth Sarim.
But I also have to submit that Jehovah's Witnesses reject the evolutionary model merely on the basis that they are ignorant of it.
Evolution is so accepted by Christians that, as I mentioned before, Darwin is hailed as a hero which is why he is entombed at one of the most important churches in the world. That Jehovah's Witnesses won't accept evolution is far more telling about the foundation of their religion than it is about their theology itself. Evolution became part of Christianity's doctrinal tradition the moment the seal on Darwin's tomb was set in place.
Like throwing out the baby with the bath water, the Witnesses never began with an authentic religious model. Scholars, academics, great teachers and academics that have advanced not just Christian thought but contributed to science and the humanities in general--all this, though consisting of some 2000 years of great learning, were rejected by JWs on the sole belief that God was choosing them to understand some truth that billions of others were never privileged to see or comprehend.
When you believe that only your view is correct and could not possibly be flawed, you cannot ever grasp what is true or authentic. Organized religion and theism in general may be rejected by many, but it should never be done solely on the basis of the ignorant misrepresentations of the incapable Bible Students which became Jehovah's Witnesses.
The biggest mistake they made was abandoning all previous traditions merely because they were labeled "tradition." One should accept what is real, authentic, verifiable and true regardless if it be labeled "fact" or "tradition." A rose by any other name...
Ignorance is bliss.
When you believe that only your view is correct and could not possibly be flawed.
100% correct.
Another reason why JWs hate the EVOLUTION fact so much. Because it is widely accepted by mainstream Christianity.
And, since JWisms are henceforth no part of the World, they do all they can to refute mainstream theology. They have to ramp-up their rebuking of EVOLUTION even when evidence from scientists and nature prove otherwise.
And lastly, evolution is not a scientific "fact." - David Jay
I understand the difference between laws, facts, hypotheses and theories but, "It is a fact that every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years through a process of evolution which is a well established scientific theory #1" is not very succinct.
I will stick with "Evolution is a Fact". It is the title of an informal thread on a religious discussion forum not a scientific paper.
The scientific process does not produce or recognize "facts."
It is the goal of the scientific method to discovers facts and to explain them with elegant theories.
May be covered already, but evolution tells us that man has been here longer than the Bible states and came to be on the scene without Adam and Eve and original sin. It cuts right across the basic tenants of Christianity.
But it does not disprove a creator other than that.
If someone/something created all this and left it unsupervised, he's a really sick bastard. Try that with your kids and go to prison.
I feel that Evolution is proof of some sort of Benevolent Original Cause....Evolution matches perfectly with the concept of a Designed Universe
Consider a designer who created the living world via evolution. What would you conclude about the designer's total indifference to millions of years of unmitigated suffering?
Homo sapiens have been on earth for at least 100,000 years and for most of that time their lives have been brutal and short.
Anybody who imagines that evolution leaves room for a "benevolent" god still has a lot of explaining to do.
I see what you are saying, Cofty, and I totally agree.
I wasn't saying that evolution is not a reality. I was saying that a scientific theory is not the same thing as the word "fact" as used in the vernacular. The point of splitting hairs on my part was to demonstrate the adage that "fear of a thing perpetuates ignorance of the very same."
Speaking specifically to the Jehovah's Witness usage and not the average person's (such as yours and mine who agree that evolution explains the facts as they are), I was purposely being cautious with possible JW readers who, like an old-JW friend of mine, believe that there is such a thing as "true science," "scientific facts," and that a "scientific theory" is something unproven. Hoping to use the opportunity to attack these common Watchtower mistakes, I took it.
My old-JW friend once argued with me that the "theory of relativity" was not true because it was called a "theory" and not the "reality" or "truth of relativity." He was closed to discussion on what a scientific theory really was, and I am sure you don't have to imagine how "fun" it was dealing with such a mind on the matter.
But I am well-versed and formally trained in applied forensic and analytical methods. Critical methods aren't in the business of uncovering truths or making facts. They are in the business of explaining them, not merely telling us "what" things are but trying to understand "why."
