Why Watchtower has no place criticizing other Christian faiths as unscientific
avatar

The latest Awake! magazine ends up endorsing the views of the very people it sets out to criticize

The latest Awake! magazine ends up endorsing the views of the very people it sets out to criticize

Regular visitors to this website will be aware that I welcome readers of all religious or non-religious backgrounds and persuasions.

Though I am personally agnostic/deist (open to the existence of a creator of the universe but doubtful that he, or it, takes an interest in human affairs), my aim is to avoid offending any individual, especially on the issue of whether they believe in God or not.

I welcome open, honest and dialectic discussion from all quarters in pursuit of truth.

That said, I unashamedly embrace the theory of evolution as, not just theory, but proven fact. The evidence is, from where I stand, all around us if we will only look at it.

Those brave enough to peer beyond Watchtower’s bubble of influence (and ignorance) will note that evolution has long ceased to be questioned by serious scholars and academics, who have moved on to more productive discussion as to whether there IS a God who employed evolution as a creative tool or not.

With this in mind, you will understand the dismay with which I received the new March 2014 Awake!, which bears the title “The Untold Story of Creation.” As you can imagine, there is nothing “untold” about Watchtower’s story of creation. They have merely repackaged it, divested themselves of words they disapprove of, and spun it as something unique and revolutionary – a rare epiphany to which they are the sole trustees.

Before getting down to business with their article, the Awake! writers engage in some light target practice against their favorite bad guys – Christendom.

“…Christendom’s leaders, including so-called creationists and fundamentalists, have spun the Bible account of creation into numerous tales that deviate from what the Bible really says. These interpretations fly in the face of scientific fact.” (March 2014 Awake!, page 4)

The reader is thus left with the impression that (1) Jehovah’s Witnesses are not “creationists,” and that (2) they adhere to “scientific fact.”

Watchtower is so desperate to distance itself from the likes of Ken Ham (pictured) that it strays into misrepresenting itself

Watchtower is so desperate to distance itself from the likes of Ken Ham (pictured) that it strays into misrepresenting itself

As I have already explained on this website, Jehovah’s Witnesses are unquestionably creationists, whatever Watchtower may say to the contrary. Creationism is (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary) “the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect.”

Watchtower would struggle to argue that this is NOT what they believe, and yet they firmly repudiate the “creationist” tag for no other reason than that they don’t like the stigma associated with it. They shudder at the thought of sharing the same cramped pigeon-hole as the likes of Ken Ham and the Creation Museum, so they denounce creationism entirely – even though not all creationists believe in literal 24-hour creative days, or the Earth being only six thousand years old.

And so we find the following words on page 5 of the same article…

“What about the widespread creationist belief that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days? This concept, widely rejected by scientists, is based on a gross misunderstanding of the Bible account.”

Watchtower overlooks the fact that there is considerable latitude for positing varying “stories” of how creation took place within the creationist sphere, provided these are broadly united in their condemnation of evolution.

By thus pedantically dancing around and repudiating the creationist label, Watchtower engages in ‘word snobbery’ as I suggest in the above YouTube video. Even if the shoe fits, Watchtower refuses to wear it if it isn’t trendy enough and makes them look silly.

Though claiming they honor “scientific fact” and denouncing those whose views are “widely rejected by scientists,” Watchtower is quite happy to trample all over the conclusions of the scientific community when it suits them. Take for example the following, also on page 5…

“In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years.”

Watchtower grossly undervalues the age of our planet

Watchtower grossly undervalues the age of our planet

To most Witnesses, this will seem a reasonable statement on the face of it. But as with most Watchtower pronouncements, the devil is in the detail. When you consider that the Earth is known to be 4.5 billion years old, Watchtower’s “thousands of years” quote falls woefully short.

Simply put, six creative days which “could” have spanned only “thousands of years” would not come close to covering the colossal age of our planet. It would be like saying: “the ninety-year-old man is six ‘days’ old, with each ‘day’ lasting a few hours.”

“Thousands of years” just doesn’t cut it, and the lambasting of other offshoots of Christendom as unscientific becomes remarkably hypocritical.

But the most reprehensible part of this magazine is its utter misrepresentation of evolution, and attempts to smear it as foolish and silly. Take, for example, page 5 which says…

“Supposedly, at some point a bacteria-like, self-replicating organism arose, gradually branching out into all the species that exist today. This would imply that ultimately the mind-bogglingly complex human actually evolved from bacteria.”

Of course when you take the utmost extremes in the journey of life from microbial form all the way through to intelligent homo-sapiens, you make evolution appear insane. But just because something is unlikely doesn’t make it impossible – and it becomes far less impossible once you factor in billions of years and almost limitless possibilities for subtle mutations and incremental adaptations forged by environmental influences.

But that wasn’t what really made my blood boil.

It was this…

“The kinds of animals and plants created by God have obviously undergone changes and have produced variations within the kinds. In many cases, the resulting life-forms are remarkably different from one another. The Bible account of creation does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.”

Again, most Witnesses will nod in agreement and find this a reasonable position to assume – a sort of “halfway house” between fundamentalist nutbags and non-believers.

But wait – did Watchtower not just acknowledge that animals and plants “obviously” undergo changes? Is this not what the scientific community calls “evolution?”

You would think so, but you must then remember that only as recently as the October 15, 2013 Watchtower (pp.7-11) was the following assertion made…

“One widespread false teaching that blinds people to the truth about God is the doctrine of evolution.”

The only way to marry the Awake! acknowledgment with the Watchtower denunciation is to say that YES animals and plants change, but only within a species (or “kind”) and thus we are not allowed to use the word “evolution” to describe these changes because it has been declared a “false teaching.”

The above obviously makes no sense at all. It is nothing more than playing word games and losing badly.

If you admit that living things change on whatever level, and adapt to their circumstances, then you simply must admit that evolution is fact. Instead, Watchtower shirks the term either because it doesn’t like the connotations, or (more likely) because it wants to stick with what it has been saying for decades and avoid backpedaling.

But it gets worse.

Creationist minister Ray Comfort finds his beliefs simultaneously criticized and endorsed in this magazine

Creationist minister Ray Comfort finds his beliefs simultaneously criticized and endorsed in this magazine

Take another look at the following assertion: “The Bible account of creation does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.”

You would think that, if the above wording is a widely accepted “scientific observation,” there would be no shortage of instances where the phrase “variations occur within a kind” is employed. So, what does a quick Google search of this phrase reveal?

I tried this yesterday and found six search results for this phrase. One result was the Awake! article itself, so immediately we were down to five results for the whole internet. Of the remaining five, three originated from the written work of one man… Ray Comfort.

Specifically, Ray wrote a 50-page foreword to his abridged version of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, criticizing evolution, in which he said the following (bold is mine)…

“Small scale variations occur within a kind, though nothing new actually comes into being (“evolves”) in microevolution.”

If you are unfamiliar with who Ray Comfort is, please look him up. He is a well-known Christian evangelist and proponent of, you guessed it… creationism.

By way of a character reference, I would urge you read his Wikipedia page and learn of how he deleted four chapters from HIS version of Darwin’s great work – chapters that offered the “strongest evidence” for evolution. The man is therefore both a religious fundamentalist and an obvious charlatan, and yet this is precisely the sort of person Watchtower simultaneously condemns and agrees with in its war against a common enemy… evolution.

If this is not clear hypocrisy, ignorance and duplicity, what is?

By this point in my article, many Witnesses and readers who have been taught by Watchtower to repudiate evolution will be feeling distinctly uneasy with my defense of it. I know only too well how you will be feeling, because I was the same until very recently. In fact, one of the public talks I used to give as an elder (circa 2008) was a half-hour rebuttal of evolution using Watchtower’s flawed reasoning (I still have the recording).

All I would say to such ones is to please look at the evidence, and at least furnish yourself with some grasp of what evolution purports to be rather than Watchtower’s demeaning caricature of it.

I know a little on the subject, enough to grasp the basics, but I still consider myself a layperson. For a decent outline of what evolution is, I would strongly recommend you listen to the following words of the late Christopher Hitchens, a hero of mine, who died within a year of speaking in this debate.

I know this article will not meet with universal approval from my readers, but I cannot apologise for defending scientifically established fact. Whether you are a believer or not, I’m afraid evolution is here to stay. Those like Watchtower who insist on denouncing it and/or replacing it with their own half-baked unsupported pseudo-science will only become more isolated and discredited as human knowledge continues its relentless advance.

What really bruises me in all of this is the thought of all the Witness children who will pick up and read this magazine, perhaps as part of their “family worship.” If Watchtower succeeds in duping thinking adults into swallowing its backwards lies and quackery, at least some blame can be apportioned to those who readily allow themselves to be swept along without doing objective research.

The same cannot be said of young, impressionable minds that can be only too easily stultified and hindered by the preachments of a cult that has nothing more than self-perpetuation as its sole preoccupation.

 

new-cedars-signature2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

Bookmark the permalink.

192 Responses to Why Watchtower has no place criticizing other Christian faiths as unscientific

  1. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    rexx,
    Who created monkeys? The same god you are fighting for? Are you mocking monkeys or their creator? When the deluge of waters occurred on the earth, monkeys survived as they could find their way into Noah’s ark?

    If you had been there, I am sure you would have been killed (Not Noah’s family member) leaving behind 2 monkeys in the ark!! How are you mocking monkeys?

    Well, your god has a covenant with monkeys “(Genesis 9:14-16) . . .And it shall occur that when I bring a cloud over the earth, then the rainbow will certainly appear in the cloud. 15 And I shall certainly remember my covenant which is between me and YOU and every living soul among all flesh; and no more will the waters become a deluge to bring all flesh to ruin. 16 And the rainbow must occur in the cloud, and I shall certainly see it to remember the covenant to time indefinite between God and every living soul among all flesh that is upon the earth.”
    Unfortunately, monkeys are not aware of that good news of the kingdom of the rainbow covenant between your god and them, go and tell them the explanation of the rainbow as for me, I will keep its scientific smart explanation!!

  2. Hakizimana Jean de Dieu says:

    rexx, you ask me to explain how non living matter produce life on earth. I am surprised you are silly, how are you asking me what you know?
    (Genesis 2:7) 7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, . . .

    Satisfied! If not, go back and read (Genesis 1:26, 27) . . .“Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. . . (Genesis 2:21, 22) . . .Jehovah God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man. . .

    Long story, “leave it in Jehovah’s hand”!!!

  3. rexx says:

    Am atheist using the the bible,I thought you gave up believing in God?

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      What do you mean Rexx? Your post makes no sense whatever. Is ‘Am’ a typo for ‘An’? Why should not an atheist study religious texts? They are a guide to human thought and behaviour down the ages. A reader of Greek myths is not bound to have a belief in the reality of Zeus and co.

      Maybe you are simply addicted to displaying your ignorance.

  4. rexx says:

    So is the endless reading of useless books written by man,trying to enlighten themselves with much to do about nothing. except the inspired word of God that has withstood the test of time. Tell me sunny, if you don’t believed in God,what do you call a anomaly in a house that is haunted? will you challenge such anomally,out of curiosity?

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Explain yourself, Rexx! What is an ‘anomaly’ in a haunted house?

      Please substantiate your claim, with evidence, that the Bible is something more than a man made book.

      Granted, the Bible has remained in wide circulation for millennia, but there is no consensus on its meaning; hence the masses of sects claiming to live by whatever its message might be.

      The Bible has not ‘stood the test of time’. Its chronology, history, cosmology, biology and prophecy have all been confounded by discoveries and events.

      Further, human morality has moved on from that of the Bible. Women’s equality is now accepted all but universally and slavery is globally outlawed. War is considered, at best, an occasional grubby and regrettable least of evils. In much of the Bible violence is glorified.

      I do not expect and answer from you Rexx. If nothing else you are consistent in your failure to answer any questions put to you.

      You are doing the cause of secularism, however, a great service. You are an example of the poverty of vision, and indeed knowledge, required to continue as a bibliolater in the 21st century.

  5. rexx says:

    You are talking about the same rhetoric by many charlatans that want a place in the anal pages of human history.Further. — human morality has moved on from that of the Bible—(ME) really explain the fail marriages by those who embrace a form of false Independence but are nothing but slaves to their own selfish desires? explain the lies and fail promises by those in power? —-Granted, the Bible has remained in wide circulation for millennia, but there is no consensus on its meaning; hence the masses of sects claiming to live by whatever its message might be. —– (ME).Nice empty philosophical words without any meaning(Granted, the Bible has remained in wide circulation for millennia, but there is no consensus on its meaning)—-masses of sects claiming to live by whatever its message might be—–(ME)Sects do not use the bible as guiding force of superior moral standard in their lives just like atheist or agnostic who are guided by their own selfish unethical moral code. Your words are without any meaning empty just like an eggshell.—-Explain yourself, Rexx! What is an ‘anomaly’ in a haunted house? Well child, the normal dumb down people called it the supernatural ,spirits and sure the devious evolutionist will not bother to investigate .— You are doing the cause of secularism a great service—- (me) So far it has done great wonders for the rest of humanity(haaaaaahaaaaa) . Why would a true follower of Jesus Christ involved itself into the corrupted politics of the (demons)mouth? ——The Bible has not ‘stood the test of time’. Its chronology, history, cosmology, biology and prophecy have all been confounded by discoveries and event— (Me)what prophecy has been confounded by discoveries?

  6. rexx says:

    Rexx – please explain why you refuse to acknowledge that there is ongoing research into the origin of life and why you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution via natural selection is the process that has produced the variety of earthly life.— Because it does not exist and will never be real but only a theory a silly guess. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A qute not mine,” A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means. I will keep on laughing to this fiction theory, which of a course a profitable cause for those in the field(more grants and funding any one). biogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. You Hear that sunny, non-life molecules(I wish some one could explain that). Remember The most famous origin of life experiment was completed in 1953 by Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago.(create life in atest tube) What was their finding and conclusion:Urey and Miller assumed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of proteins, the basic structure of all life (Horgan, 1996, p. 130). Although widely heralded by the press as “proving” the origin of life could have occurred on the early earth under natural conditions without intelligence, the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure. In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell. In a summary the famous Urey/Miller origin-of-life experiment, Horgan concluded: .In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned (1996, p. 138). Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information (Pigliucci, 1999; Dembski, 1998). And since other scientist doubted their finding,research has since drawn Miller’s hypothetical atmosphere into question, causing many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings. Recently, scientists have focused on an even more exotic amino acid source: meteorites. Chyba is one of several researchers who have evidence that extraterrestrial amino acids may have hitched a ride to Earth on far flung space rocks (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). Have they discover how life originated? No.Yet another difficulty is, even if the source of the amino acids and the many other compounds needed for life could be explained, it still must be explained as to how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the same area and then properly assembled themselves. This problem is a major stumbling block to any theory of abiogenesis: no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation. That’s one of the strongest reasons that Wächtershäuser, Morowitz, and other hydrothermal vent theorists want to move the kitchen [that cooked life] to the ocean floor. If the process starts down deep at discrete vents, they say, it can build amino acids—and link them up—right there (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). I say the one sitting above the circle of the earth is laughing at the poor fools who are trying so hard to find how life originated from lifeless matter.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I hope, Rexx, you will study the subjects on which you make comments before displaying your embarrassing ignorance. Evolution is not ‘a silly guess’. Only someone who has never bothered to study the subject would come out with such an idiotic statement.

      The Bible is a fallible man made book. Neither you nor anyone else has produced evidence to even suggest its divine inspiration. Much of the morality in the Bible is appalling. Capital punishment for Sabbth breaking; stoning to death for adultery and glorification of genocide are just some of the horrors it contains.

      You have made your points Rexx. No one can be in any doubt that you are anything other than a self righteous and angry ignoramus. Education may well help to release you from the mental prison in which you are currently confined.

      Best wishes.

  7. rexx says:

    sayonara,adieu,rest in piece. Rowland Nelken.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Thank you Rexx – I never doubted your ability to cut and paste. Thank you for demonstrating, once again, the points I have made. You appear to be tragically locked into remaining a Bibliolater. Your rambling, inchoate prose simply demonstrates your utter confusion and lamentable inarticulacy and ignorance. Bibliolatry also seem to make you angry, Here’s to your recovery!

  8. Wow., Cedars your web has brought out a lot of intellectuals, who have spent a long time in a dark room thinking of words very few JW’s understand when you think most have a 80 IQ or less , if they just stumble on this sight and read the stories , I know they won’t understand a word the bloggers are talking about. It’s like ” who can us big words’ or like government speak. Let’s get back to making it simple , a few paragraphs would be good, rambling on and on is boring

  9. Reader says:

    Rexx,

    You still have a very basic misunderstanding of evolution, the science behind it, and how it works. If you do not educate yourself you will continue to appear foolish to those who understand it. Your ignorance is your own fault.

    As much as you continue to tie them together, origin of life and evolution are very different. There is no keen understanding on the origin of life. Maybe it didn’t even happen here. Evolution, on the other hand, has overwhelming scientific support. There is no debate about its existence among the scientific community, only debate about the mechanism.

    Your defence is akin to claiming that gravity (also a theory, by the way) is wrong because scientists have not yet proven the existence of the graviton.

  10. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    Selfish, unethical code? I am an atheist and I do not follow a selfish, unethical code!

    Rexx, I have to say that you obviously haven’t met many atheists. Have you, I fact, even met an atheist ever? Which atheist are you thinking of to cause you to slander the morality of people who do not believe in God?

    Your knowledge of evolution is flawed. Your argument is flawed. Your spelling and grammar are abysmal.

    I am a moral and unselfish person. I have educated myself to the extent that I am a qualified teacher, and I am helping my fellow man by educating children.

    I take the time to comment on this site, because I am horrified at the abuse of children in the WTBTS.

    There is a wealth of information on evolution, and many other scientific subjects, on the internet. Do some research, not to back your theories, but to challenge them. That is the scientific method. It will help you to understand the subjects that you have singularly failed to understand.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  11. Art says:

    I was at the Dembski/Hitchens debate at Prestenwood. It was a great debate.

  12. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    Alice Roberts, a medical doctor and a scientist, commented on the Daily Politics on BBC1 that Creationist schools exist in the UK, and they are damaging science education.

    There is an article in the New Statesman by a gentlemen who was educated at a Christian college and was taught Creationism as a scientific fact.

    Looks like this issue is going to continue to be debated as it should be. Creationism is not scientific. It is a belief.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  13. Willows says:

    There is a saying…” don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

    In other words hold onto what is valuable and throw out the dirty water.

    The principles of the Bible are good for mankind, and people do find peace of mind in following them. The Watchtower Society have their problems , they need to understand calling people names is primary school conduct.
    Perhaps in time they will mature to Christs teaching of…
    “you heard it said to hate your enemies, I say to you to love your enemies…..” When people overcome hate peace of mind follows.

    I don’t believe evolution has the answers.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      There are bits of wisdom knocking about in the Bible, just as there are in many books. It is the myth of divine inspiration which lends the Bible a dangerous authority. The filthy bathwater of much of the Torah, or even Jesus’ Hellfire threats and JW Armageddon cruel nonsense are just bits of Bible filth which should remain purely as subjects for academic study. Literature and the history of ideas are enriched by Bible study. Much Biblical moral guidance, along with Biblical political history and cosmology, however, is best flushed down the plughole.

      What questions, by the way, does evolution not answer? It is purely the facts regarding the origin of the diversity of life on earth. Evolution does not make any greater claims.

  14. Willows says:

    Evolution is not a fact, it is a hypothesis.
    Something assumed for the purpose of argument, a theory assumed to account for what is not understood.

    To manufacture a car, ideas are put to the test, held or discarded as not workable.
    The car today has come a long way from the T model Ford. Some might say it evolved in the mind of the designer. However evolution did not manufacture the car, it took an intelligent mind to design the manufacturing plant to produce the car. Evolution is an idea, it made nothing.

    • Cedars says:

      Oh dear Willows, allow me to do a facepalm!

      Evolution is very much a fact. It is observable in the world around us, as I alluded to in my article. Microbiologists see evolution happening on a daily basis due to the fact that microbes reproduce far more quickly.

      In one video, which I’ve embedded on this site, a biologists explains that the only way to stop certain microbes evolving is to plunge them into liquid nitrogen. Of course, you could be one of those creationists who seeks to differentiate between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” – in which case I wish you good luck, because the burden of proof is then all on you to give evidence that organisms can only evolve to a certain stage before they hit some invisible anti-evolution barrier unknown to science.

      Your analogy of the model T ford is a nudge at “intelligent design” – the idea of the watch found on the beach. A person finding such a mechanism would look at all the parts and conclude that it must have a designer. However, the analogy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. There doesn’t NEED to be any intelligence to evolution – it works without intelligence (or sentience).

      Rather than creating things from the top down, as when a designer makes something, evolution works from the bottom up. Over vast amounts of time, with limitless opportunities for genetic variation, organisms can gain complexity through random mutations that are honed by the organism’s environment, which dictates which organisms have the needed attributes to survive.

      Giraffes, for example, did not suddenly appear on the African savannah complete with their characteristic long necks. Rather, the forebears of giraffes had shorter necks, and offspring born with longer necks were inevitably more successful at surviving because they had access to more food that couldn’t be reached by their stubbier counterparts.

      This is essentially what evolution is. I would recommend you do more research and give the matter more thought before attacking it.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I hope, Willows, that you follow Cedars’ advice and teach yourself something about evolution before making any more comments on it.

      As to the Bible, do you credit such wisdom it contains with the the essential nous, experience and learning of its authors, or are you of the opinion that the Bible is a book apart, a complete guide to life and of divine inspiration?

  15. Willows says:

    Cedars with all due respect for viewpoint. I would have to say rather than a nudge towards intelligent design I would rather give it a push forward. Why…

    Look around you, the room you are in now.
    Everything in your room has been produced with intelligent designers. For a moment shut your eyes an imagine you can not see, you don’t even know what sight is. How can you design an eye ? Please explain. Do you think it was not designed?

    • Cedars says:

      Willows – your response gives the unmistakeable impression that you haven’t even looked at my earlier reply to you – particularly the latter half. Tell me – did you read any of it?

  16. Willows says:

    Rowland do you think you are the result of evolution? All your body parts in the same place as a person from South America, Africa,
    Japan,Spain,France….

    All body parts in the same position….Doctors would have big problems operating on a body with mutations.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Please willows, before making any further comments on evolution, read about the subject. Your display of ignorance is getting embarrassing. Yes mankind is a species, and for all that we have some individual traits we can mate and produce fertile live young. Try reading Darwin’s ‘The Descent of Man’, or indeed any reputable book on the subject. It is clear you have never made the slightest attempt.

  17. Willows says:

    Cedars yes I read your comments. You have not answered my reply, about your eye sight
    development. Do you think it was not designed?

    • Cedars says:

      Willows – I find it curious that I am expected to respond to your comments, but you are free to ignore mine – as evidenced by the fact that you didn’t even acknowledge my explanation as to why your intelligent design argument doesn’t apply to evolution.

      The evolution of the eye is a remarkable thing. You would do well to research it. I’ve already alluded in the above article (I’m dubious now as to whether you read it?) to certain forms of salamander that have lost their eyes gradually over millions of years after being trapped in total darkness and no longer having use for them. Necessity, you see, is the mother of invention. It is what makes evolution work. If an organism would survive better if only it had light-sensitive cells clustered together in a certain configuration, then over millions of years and with an almost infinite number of opportunities for genetic trial-and-error, nature can (and does) make it happen.

  18. Willows says:

    Cedars I have replied to your view of the origin of life as we see it today with it’s many complex appearances.

    I asked you to look around your room and note everything in your room has been designed by intelligent designers. Logic does not tell me these things appeared in my room without a designer. However how many millions of years pass by.

    Some life forms do amazing things, it would
    takes ages to record. But once again I say to you inanimate and animate things give evidence of design. Evolution to my mind is a long bow, a bridge too far away from logic ,
    it is an excuse.

    When you walk into an art gallery as I have all over the world. Europe and Asia. All of these splendid and magnificent works of art are acknowledged by the galleries having an artist name plate. Yet people go outside these galleries into the real world and give no acknowledgement [not all people] to the intelligence around them.

    Sometimes, it is best said, “we agree to disagree.” As I said earlier I don,t believe
    evolution has the answers.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Willows – why are you so keen to display your ignorance?

    • Cedars says:

      Willows – agreeing to disagree is something normally done when both parties fully grasp eachother’s arguments but reach an impasse. However, your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding as to what evolution actually is – hence you cannot fully grasp my argument, nor the fact that whether evolution exists or not is non-negotiable because it is all around us. Saying “I don’t believe evolution has the answers” is about as silly as saying “I don’t believe gravity has the answers.”

      Again, I would encourage you to research the subject, but I somehow doubt you will.

  19. Excelsior, formerly known as George says:

    Willows,

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

    All your analogies to things in rooms and motor cars are not biological systems, are they?

    The eye has evolved independently in many species over millions of years. We have fossil evidence that shows how eyes came to be.

    Indeed, there are species out there that make our eyes look rubbish. Their eyes help them survive in their environment.

    If you continue to use manufactured items as analogies, you will never understand evolution. There are many sites on the internet that have helpful information. Or you could visit your local library.

    I wish you good fortune in your journey of discovery!

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  20. palma says:

    cedars, it’s a fact that watchtower is creationist but the evolution will still a theory until we don’t observ fossils of animals evolving in another species. I am no expert but watch what experts tell about it in this video and you will see that evolution is only a philosophy. It talks also about the matter of datation… if you don’t have time watch at least the talks of professor Giertich in the last 14 minutes of the video.
    [pro-creationist video link removed]

  21. Palma says:

    Cedars, you too confessed being no expert in your video! It makes you at least much ignorant than i am! Besides you deleted the video made by scientists that explained why evolution is not a fact and you didn’t even explain why. Could you give a clue?

    • Cedars says:

      I cannot be as ignorant as you are if you are criticizing evolution while simultaneously showing the world how little you know about it with a comment like the one below…

      “evolution will still a theory until we don’t observ fossils of animals evolving in another species”

      Again, I suggest you research the subject. You will then find that evolution works slowly and incrementally over vast periods of time. There can be no such thing as a “fossil of an animal evolving into another species” because that is not how evolution works. If you don’t understand that, then frankly you have no place offering an opinion on the subject.

      According to professor and author Brian Alters, 99.9% of scientists accept evolution as fact. If some of the crackpots who make up the 0.01% have clubbed together and made a video attempting to refute evolution that is their prerogative. But I work hard on JWsurvey to make sure it contains nothing but truth and facts. I will not have it hijacked by you or any so-called scientist who refuses to take hard evidence seriously for reasons that are most likely to do with emotional bias towards religious texts and narrow-minded interpretations thereof.

      Is that clear?

  22. Palma says:

    I expected you to be more neutral when you are not even an expert on the subject. You removed the video made by scientists that disagree with the evolution theory (and labeled it pro-creationist) but let all the pro-evolutionist videos). Thought we should always have both sides of the story!

    • Cedars says:

      I am no more “neutral” when it comes to accepting evolution than I am “neutral” when it comes to accepting gravity. Both are factual and based on evidence. There is no “other side of the story” to be told other than a backwards take on reality that skips past reason and evidence and attempts to graft religious dogma and narrow-mindedness over what is observably true.

  23. Palma says:

    Rowland, thanks for the link! Unfortunately is a 3 hours video but I watch it soon. Wish you could watch my video too and share about but it seems not allowed…

    • Cedars says:

      No, it’s not allowed, and I am unapologetic about removing it. I will also remove any videos you might post refuting gravity, the water cycle, Newton’s laws of thermodynamics or videos denouncing any other scientifically proven laws, forces or processes.

      I have no time for people who propagate falsehood to make themselves feel better about their own delusion.

      • palma says:

        If it was a fact, it wouldn’t be debated by Scientists. Facts like Gravity and etc is not debated! I propagate nothing at all, just asking for clean debate and respect. I would accept evolution if it was clear for all scientists. Delusion of what? All that matters is the truth.
        Don’t judge! you don’t know me! Do you?

        • Cedars says:

          Evolution is not debated by scientists, at least not by 99.9% of them. It is only the precise mechanics of how evolution works that is debated. The fact that it exists and shapes natural life all around us is plain for all but the most ignorant and blinkered religious zealots to see. There is no point “debating” something that is proven, or do you also believe we should debate the existence of strong and weak nuclear forces, or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I have read and watched a range of so called ‘scientific’ refutations of evolution and champions of creationism. None is remotely convincing. As Cedars says, evolution is a fact. There is much to be learned about the detailed biochemical mechanics and the specifics of every creature’s family tree from the original emergence of earthly life, but no one except bibliolaters and koranolaters sees the 6 day creation story as anything other than a fusion of ancient pre – scientific myths.

  24. palma says:

    I am glad you are the one who found the truth and don’t need to debate. All other scientists against evolution are insane and paid by religion…(joking).

  25. palma says:

    All I have to say is they don’t agree with evolution and they have good arguments:
    M. Giertych – geneticist
    Guy Berthault – sedimentologist
    R. Fondi – paleontologist
    Boudreaux – inorganic chemist
    G. Sermonti – molecular biologist

    • Cedars says:

      There is nothing new in creationists rolling out so-called ‘scientists’ who will support their narrow-minded world view, most of whom, it turns out, share the same religious bias. An argument against evolution is an argument against logic, reason and hard evidence. If JWsurvey readers want to review this information they can find it on any of the creationist websites that abound online and which are utterly discredited by the scientific community in general. I’m determined that they won’t find such nonsense on here just because you and others are determined to drag people into sharing your ignorance. I make no apologies.

  26. palma says:

    Sorry, all you do is criticize and judge people. You could for example give some arguments on why the carbon 14 and uranium datation are totally reliable, or other subjects. Rather you only argument is to put all people, non-evolutionists in the same box as “religious ignorants”.
    If you were not ignorant like US, you would argue instead.

  27. palma says:

    Don’t become like the organization you are fighting in this website!

    • Cedars says:

      Don’t be ridiculous. The organization I am fighting prospers precisely because it is so successful in duping people like you into believing that every page of the bible should be taken literally even if its account is subsequently dis-proven by science.

      I work too hard on this website to surrender it to you or anyone like you who believes that if there is a disagreement between science and the bible it must be science that is wrong. I make no apologies for curtailing your efforts to dupe people into embracing your ignorance. I work damned hard on keeping this website factual and authoritative, and I won’t have it hijacked or defaced with your anti-science nonsense.

      Are you going to continue trolling or do we need to block you?

  28. Rowland Nelken says:

    Palma- What motivates you to refute evolution? Are you hooked on the ‘truth’ of the Bible story? If so, why?

    What is so special about a jumble of writings from the Eastern Med. compiled between 1700 and 2500 years ago from a range of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?

    Whatever the literary merit and historical and linguistic interest, and there is plenty of all three, why should writings compiled in a pre – scientific age be assumed to be a scientifically reliable account of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on earth?

    You seem, Palma, to be a Bibliolater. Please explain why.

  29. Palma says:

    Guys, the problem is that I am being prejuged! I am not even talking about the bible! lot of people who believe in evolution are like religious people, they believe because “authority” say it’s the truth, they aren’t capable of explaining because they didn’t study genetics or else (they have faith in the little they know)… Me neither, but all i searched was opinions…

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      I have heard that one before. What then, Palma, is your view on the origin of species? If you do not believe in evolution, how do you account for the variety of species of plants, animals, fungi and other life forms now populating earth?

      I have only come across evolution deniers who are hooked on the Bible or Koran. They imagine that if evidence for evolution is lacking (which it isn’t, of course) then, by default, the Bible story must be true.

      Is that your take, Palma, or do you have another narrative completely to describe how the variety of life froms we know emerged?

  30. Palma says:

    I even posted in the videos section in this site a link that contradicts the bible origin. http://www.davidovits.info/the-lost-fresco-and-the-bible-my-new-book-in-french/
    So I am open minded and open to dialog but I don’t put all my faith in things only because authority say so. For me it’s even possible that the bible and the evolution are wrong. You see the evolution theory is evolving too, since they don’t find the missing links darwin’s told, then instantaneous evolution was born. The watchtower did the same, when nothing happened in 1914 then Jesus came invisibly. Can’t argue cause Jesus is invisible, and for the evolution we must believe adaption will one day lead to another species but will never see a gigantic animal never observed before appearing in nature. This is my opinion of what I can understand in this moment.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Well that at least is clear. You, Palma, understand nothing.

      Learn something about evolution first and then come back.

      You are in no position to offer an opinion on something of which you are totally ignorant. Scientific authority backs up its claims with evidence.

      You, Palma, have provided sufficient evidence of your pathetic ignorance. You are incapable of making a useful comment on the subject of evolution.

  31. Excelsior says:

    Palma,

    Scientific progress and religious expediency are not synonymous.

    The theory of evolution has indeed evolved as new evidence has come to light. However, the basic premise has not changed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s beginnings. Natural selection is a fact.

    You seem to be conflating truth with scientific fact. They are not the same! Scientific fact is always pending change, whereas truth is a philosophical ideal.

    As mentioned before, do some proper research, using reputable websites. There’s so much to appreciate and learn about out there.

    Peace be with you

    Excelsior!

  32. Rowland Nelken says:

    Palma- Please explain why the reliability of carbon 14 dating calls into question the theory of evolution.

    I have never, by the way, attended an ‘evolution class’. I have, however, read books on evolution by Charles Darwin and others as well as anti evolution drivel published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other creationists.

    I have never come across an anti -evolutionist, whatever their scientific credentials, who is not motivated by a determination to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

    Apart from waving ‘Carbon 14′ in our faces which, by itself, demonstrates nothing, all you have done Palma, is try to imagine that there are ‘two sides’ to a question where only one side exists.

    There are no credible flat earthers, no credible gravity deniers, no credible advocates of an earth centred universe. In the same way there are no credible deniers of evolution. Saying ‘Carbon 14 dating is reliable’ (or even ‘Carbon 14 dating is not reliable’) tells us, in isolation, nothing about anything.

    You, Palma, have gone out of your way, it seems, to present yourself as someone who is determined to display and flaunt their pathetic ignorance.

    You can hardly go off in a huff merely because your attempts to display your ignorance have been so clearly recognised.

  33. palma says:

    So you read some darwin books and now you are the know-it-all scholar? I have “L’origine des espèces” and have the right to disagree, and you are just an offensive person. Thousands of scientists don’t agree with natural selection. And many scientists don’t take position cause it can be harmful to their career. Check the 2013 list : http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      No, Palma, I do not not ‘know it all’.

      I referred to some of the books I have read explaining evolution and also to some that support creationism.

      The former are convincing and clear; the latter pathetic and absurd.

      You, Palma, have given no reasons for supporting creationism. You did not answer my question about Carbon 14 dating and its relevance.

      A tiny minority of scientists, all, it appears, Bibliolaters, have taken issue with the facts of evolution.

      You have failed to explain your position Palma, and have resorted to mere insults.

      If you have any reasons for doubting the known facts of evolution, please explain.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Please list, Palma, if not the ‘thousands’ of scientists’ who disagree with the facts of natural selection, at least afew hundred.

      The names of those who fear their careers are at stake should they voice their disbelief of facts would also be interesting.

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Science, by definition, demands constant questioning. There is nothing at all surprising that, assuming it is authentic, the scientists on that list encourage questioning of Darwin’s assumptions.

      Scepticism of the ability of random mutation to account for life’s diversity is one thing.

      Is there any information on what, if any, alternative theories, any of the scientists on the list has put forward?

      Is there a single one who has ‘backed’ the account given in the first two chapters of Genesis and offered peer reviewed evidence to support his/her claims?

      Do you have any info., Palma, on who took the time to circulate this letter around the globe, requesting signatures of assent?

      Some information would be interesting.

      • Cedars says:

        Rowland, Palma is blocked. You don’t get to repeatedly refute science on this website and then complain at people being “offensive” for pointing out the leaky or non-existent logic in your arguments.

        • Rowland Nelken says:

          Thanks, Cedars. Do you happen to know the provenance of that list of ‘random mutation’ skeptics?

          • Cedars says:

            If you’re referring to the list of ‘scientists’ who appeared in the video, I see no reason to establish the credentials of a list of science-deniers. In the recent Ham v. Nye debate it was notable that Ham was able to trot out a list of names from the science community who supported his views that the earth is 6,000 years old.

            It’s an old trick used by creationists, and it proves nothing – other than that not all scientists are immune from religious bias.

  34. chatpal says:

    since we all have our own views and only live for 80 or 90 years just have fun with all the ‘what ifs’ and interesting discoveries as a means for entertainment,
    and use our life to the full for joy instead of worrying and
    letting oursleves slip into heated debates which no one can possibly win :)
    anyone ever watch ancient aliens series?
    wow what fun that was!

  35. koalaboy says:

    The Bible has not ‘stood the test of time’. Its chronology, history, cosmology, biology and prophecy have all been confounded by discoveries and events.

    What rubbish as the AUSSIES would say. Have you ever been to the middle-east especially Israel and Jordan? I have been with Archaeologists who don’t have a religious bone in their body BUT I was told that they often refer to the Bible because of it’s chronology and history helps them to actually make discoveries. Mate you will be overwhelmed with the historical evidence that is in the Bible if you make even an half hearted investigation by going to Israel. Even Josephus who was an historian in 1st century wrote so much verifying the Bible characters such as Pilate from the written documents that he read prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. That was one of the most laughable statements I have heard in almost 60 years. Are you a teenager?

    • Rowland Nelken says:

      Please tell me, Koalaboy, about the archaeological evidence for Noah’s Flood, the Flight from Egypt and Solomon’s Temple, the biological evidence in support of the Creation story and the Cosmological support for the earth centred universe decribed therein.

      Would a trip to Israel convince me of the Bible’s veracity in these matters. If so, how?

      • Cedars says:

        Thanks Rowland, I’ve got this. I take this site’s religious neutrality very seriously. As much as Koalaboy would love it, the last thing we want is for this comments section to descend into a debate on belief v. non-belief. There are plenty of other websites where that debate rages, but precious few that focus on getting people out of the Watchtower cult. I would rather focus on the site’s objectives as much as possible, even though you will never catch me writing that evolution isn’t a fact – because it plainly is.

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.