by slimboyfat 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The Photo-drama of Creation (1912) says that God directed the evolution of animals into their current "fixed" forms, but that humans were created directed. The Divine Plan of the Ages said the same thing. (Various editions late 1800s to early 1900s) The 1898 booklet on evolution opposes the evolution of man but doesn't discuss animal evolution.
So does anyone know when and why did the Watchtower start opposing the idea that animal species arose through a process of divinely directed evolution?
Hi Slimboyfat,
P6 of the Photodrama of creation:
"The Darwinian theory has disappointed those who swallowed it without a sufficiency of demonstration as to its truth. - (1 Timothy 6:20) Recent demonstrations show that every mixture of species and kind, even where partly successful means a reversion to the original standards within the third or fourth generation in plants, flowers, fruits and in animals. The correct thought would seem to be that under Divine supervision various orders of creation were brought to a state of development and a fixity of species, not to be turned aside nor thereafter altered."
Russell seems to be saying the evolution occurred up until a specific point in time and then stopped. As you pointed out he viewed mankind as a separate creation.
By 1927 J F Rutherford specifically states that the whole creation (excluding the stars and planets) only took 49 thousand years (this period refers to the "preparation" of earth) - Reference the Book called Creation 1927. Rutherford seems to give latitude to the idea that some animal evolution could have happened. He keeps to Russell's idea that human kind was a separate creation.
Here's where the problem comes in. Because of the 49 000 year limitation and because evolutionary timelines were becoming more clearly defined showing that much longer periods were involved, it seems as if the Watchtower organization had to abandon the position totally.
So between 1927 (Creation book) and 1967 (Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation?) it seems as if evolution was discarded. I would say it probably also happened after Rutherford died in 1942.
I hope somebody else can narrow it down further.
The Jan 1885 wt p.7 describes evolution as a device of Satan.
You have to remember that the term "evolution" generally used by dubs and by the WT actually means the start of life rather than the gradually changing of species according to their environment.
The WT say they don't believe in "evolution" but refer to it many times when species adapt and change what they are, like the peppered moth.
And we all know about the super evolution required after the flood if you believe that.
Granted, they never say it occurs cross species where it actually does but most of the time when dubs or WT talk about evolution they actually mean Abiogenesis.
Hi notsurewheretogo,
I left out the sentence just before:"The conflict between Evolution and the Bible has been sharp. Nevertheless, unnecessary friction has been generated.,Only in respect to man does the Bible declare a special,direct creation of God. The statements of Genesis in respect to the lower creatures rather favor something along the lines of specialized Evolution."
This sounds much much broader than what dubs refer to today as "adaptive evolution" within a species.
WT literature even up 70s or 80s refers to evolution as a tool of Satan. But since the latest literature accepts the so-called "microevolution", that begs the question (for j-dubs): If microevolution is true, then it is a part of Creation, i.e. a tool of Jehovah. How can microevolution be a tool of Jehovah, and macroevolution a tool of Satan, since it's the same process, just in different time scales?
Even from Russell days, evolution was thought anti-biblical (it is, of course; it's just that Genesis happens to be a total myth). The Bible Students were just a mixing of Adventist and other fundamentalist US-based Christian groups; all those groups had always been creationists and anti-science in general.
Side note: the 49,000 years theology of JWs does not differ that much from the literal 7-day theology of young-earth creationists. In the scope of geological time (4.6 billion years), 49,000 years and 7 days are roughly the same, the same absurd, at least. And, basically, the WTS hasn't dropped officially the 49,000 years theology, even to this day (last time I checked). An average thinking person can surmise just from that what kind of loony teachings we're talking about.
The 1898 booklet also opposed evolution, but what it meant by evolution was apparently a bit differenent than commonly conceived today. It insists that man was a direct creation and that mankind has got worse not since its creation. Proving this idea that the species is degenerating seems to be the primary focus in refuting "evolution". In proof of this contention the booklet claims that the poetry of Virgil and the art of Michaelangelo was superior to anything contemporary. The booklet, as far as I can make out, says nothing one way or another about the origin of animal species. It seems it just wasn't what they were interested in at the time.
The 1927 book "Creation" also insists that man was created directly by God but again, as far as I can make out, says nothing about the origin of animal species.
The 1950 booklet "Evolution versus the New World" at quick glance seems to oppose the evolution of animal species in line with their current teaching.
So as far as I can make out the evolution of animal species was endorsed at least as late as 1912, wasn't explicitly opposed in 1927, and the earliest refutation I can find so far is 1950.
slimboyfat,
...and the earliest refutation I can find so far is 1950.
Which source does it come from? The 1950 booklet "Evolution versus the New World"?
