Busted! – Recently disfellowshipped son finds shocking misquote in ‘Creation’ book
avatar

A former Witness has discovered that biologist Niles Eldredge (pictured) has been gravely misquoted by Watchtower

A former Witness has discovered that biologist Niles Eldredge (pictured) has been gravely misquoted by Watchtower

“Just move on” is what Watchtower ideally prefers former Witnesses to do after leaving the organization. So-called ‘apostates’ are urged to walk away and, above all, not scrutinize their former faith or say anything negative about it.

“They are not content just to leave the organization that they perhaps once loved,” laments the July 15, 2011 Watchtower (regarding apostates). “Their aim, Paul explained, is ‘to draw away the disciples after themselves.'”

It is with good reason that Watchtower stigmatizes and ridicules former Witnesses for revisiting their old beliefs in the light of logic and reason. Why? Because if a former Witness digs deep enough, it isn’t long before they uncover convincing evidence of deliberate lies and deception.

Step forward a former Witness named Juan, who was disfellowshipped as recently as February this year for questioning his faith. Juan had been promised by his JW father that contact would continue whatever happened. But sure enough, after the disfellowshipping was announced, Juan was told that contact with his father would henceforth be limited.

This is where Watchtower wanted Juan to “suck up” their abuse of him and stay quiet. But he had other ideas.

Juan remembered that his father had first been attracted to the organization after reading the “Creation” book (full title: Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?). He recalled from looking at information on JWfacts.com that there were numerous misquotes in this book. He decided to dig deeper and see if he could utilize his University library to uncover further evidence of Watchtower deception in the very book that had convinced his father to become a Witness.

What Juan found was astonishing.

Consider the following paragraph from pages 15 and 16 of the Creation book…

“Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: ‘The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.’ He spoke of the ‘lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,’ and added, ‘things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.'” – Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, pages 15 and 16.

The objective of the above paragraph is to convince the reader that doubt exists between evolutionists, and that this is sufficient reason to dismiss evolution as fact. The study question for the above paragraph thus asks, “What has been happening among those who promote evolution?”

But what does the quote actually say when read in full context? Take a look at the partial scan below (I have indicated with an “X” where the Watchtower ‘quote’ ends).

eldredge-misquoteTo examine a high-resolution scan showing how the above text appears in the 1982 Natural History magazine, please click here.

As you can see from reading the above, Watchtower’s use of Eldredge’s words completely and intentionally twisted and misrepresented their meaning in such a way as to lead the reader to precisely the conclusion Eldredge was warning against.

The deception and misrepresentation is so blatant it is almost comical.

The level of dishonesty in the Creation book is almost comical

The level of dishonesty in the Creation book is almost comical

Eldredge was praising the fact that there is “exuberant, creative doubt and controversy” between evolutionists and pointing to the fact that such free inquiry and loyalty to the scientific principle is entirely at odds with his experience of creationists (such as the writers of Watchtower publications) who dismiss any questioning of their conclusions.

Watchtower took Eldredge’s argument, snipped out the conclusion, and recast it as a perversion of itself – conforming neatly to Eldredge’s observation of intellectually dishonest proponents of creationism in the process.

It is yet to be known how Juan’s father will react to this damning evidence of Watchtower dishonesty. But thanks to his son’s persistence, many will benefit from this discovery regardless.

The 1971 book Your Youth—Getting the Best out of It posed this question: “When you think about it, isn’t it true that any apparent benefits from lying and cheating are short term at best?” (page 173) I would answer most definitely “yes!” Watchtower may have duped millions over many decades with its intentional misquotes, slandering apostates as liars all the while, but inevitably their own lies are now catching up with them.

 

 

new-cedars-signature2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to Busted! – Recently disfellowshipped son finds shocking misquote in ‘Creation’ book

  1. Excelsior says:

    H K Faushanger,

    Well said, sir! I always look forward to your comments because they are well thought out and to the point.

    Jeni, another theory that replaces evolution? Well, it’s possible I guess, but it’s highly unlikely. Evolution fits the evidence we see in the fossil record and in the genetics of all living things. There is no need of a third theory.

    As many have already stated, this article is about the disingenuous use of quotes by the WTBTS. Their intellectual dishonesty is something that we ALL decry.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

    • Joshua Foley says:

      I think her point is that disproving evolution (if it were possible) does not automatically prove creationism.

      • Jeni says:

        @Joshua — Thank You!

        While I do currently believe evolution is the best answer, as a true believer in the scientific process, I must stay open-minded.

        The very nature of science is discoveries, and the best of those discoveries are the ones you don’t expect. –Neil deGrasse Tyson

  2. One of the things that seemed to always irritate me is how the WTBTS purposefully maintains an elitist ignorance purely based on decades-old material, misquotes, assumptions, and a general sense of “outside” confusion in which to present a “better” option of the biblical story of creation.

    In some cases, they present century-old themes and hoaxes as “evidence” of science-gone-wrong that, in no way, allow for their own “new light” argument to be applied to academia’s growth and changing in understanding.

    If the Creation book could base its research on studies ONLY found in the last 10 years (and there have been many advancements), I doubt they could conjure and argument worth writing.

  3. S Evans says:

    I was a pioneer, bethelite. I left in 2005 because of the lies and corruption. I was not disfellowshipped. When I researched the lies and misquotes from Watchtower I was ashamed. I now do science for a living and I can’t believe what we were told by ‘the society’. It certainly wasn’t ‘the truth’….

    They quoted biologist prof Dawkins book sleeve when attacking evolution, implying the theory was unstable, the Watchtower wrote:

    Page 39 Creation book:

    “At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.””

    But Dawkins was just saying…

    Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p.ix:

    “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliché or not, “stranger than fiction” expresses exactly how I feel about the truth.”

    and there is more….

    Page 89 creation book:

    “Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.””

    Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy — the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p. 286.

    “No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its skin and hair on. Sizes here are to scale, with afarensis about two feet shorter than the average human being.”

    The worst one in my opinion..

    Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye … could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

    Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133:

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

  4. PaxRomana says:

    Indeed. They love to rail on science because it changes with new discovery, but do not extend that criticism to their own changing doctrine and ideology. It is a strange sort of dualism that is impossible for any rational, logical person to accept.

  5. chatpal says:

    the only thing is, trying to show someone proof of this misleading, out of the creation book page, with the quotes, and having the real book with the whole paragraph highlighted,
    otherwise no one will believe us if we just copy and paste . then even if they see it in print they may still deny it and make excuses!
    just like some people read the calorie content in a candy bar, act shocked and still eat it :)

  6. John says:

    This is not a misquote. They are quoting the words that the person said. As Cedars says “It is with good reason that Watchtower … [revisits]their old beliefs in the [new] light of logic and reason. Why? Because if a former Witness digs deep enough, it isn’t long before they uncover convincing evidence” that the Governing Body of Jehovahs Witnesses is the Faithful and Discreet Slave Jesus continually mentioned.

  7. Greg Smith says:

    This is not a misquote, it is simply a quote about a fact minus the writer’s interpretation of the fact he states. The fact is: there is division amongst evolutionists (true), and the interpretation of that fact: this is how it should be in a healthy scientific environment (subjective). Nothing wrong with this quote whatsoever.

    • alanv says:

      Of course it is a misquote. The society are trying to give the impression that it is a very bad thing to have different views about things, whereas the writer is saying the very opposite, that it is how you make progress and get to the truth about something, especially something like evolution, when often you are dealing with things that happened in the distant past.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

applications-education-miscellaneous.png

Comment posting guidelines:

Kindly observe the following requirements before posting any comments to our articles or pages:


  • ABUSIVE COMMENTS - Do not post comments that include swear words or may be considered abusive, lewd, blasphemous, obscene or threatening
  • ILLEGAL COMMENTS - Do not post comments that condone or propose illegal activity, or that breach copyright law
  • OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS - Do not post comments that are off-topic and bear no relation to the page or article
  • RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY - Do not post comments that are evangelical in nature or may be construed as imposing one person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) over those of another
  • LANGUAGE - Visitors from all countries and language groups are welcome. You may post comments in languages other than English, but we would appreciate if you could make any such comments brief. We would also be grateful if you could run any such comments through Google Translate and convert these to English, but this is not an absolute requirement.
  • LINKS - You may post links to third party websites, so long as (1) you limit these to 2 links per comment, and (2) the content on these links doesn't contravene ANY of the first four points. Specifically, you may not post URLs to websites that are evangelical in nature. Our links page has an extensive list of such sites for any who are curious about Christian beliefs in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses.

JWSurvey.org thanks all visitors in advance for respectfully observing these guidelines. Any who persistently fail to do so, despite warnings, may find themselves blocked from making further comments at the discretion of the site moderators, whose decision will be final and not open for debate.