I was going through some files on my computer tonight and discovered something I wrote a few years back for an elder serving as a congregation PO who claimed he was trained as a geologist (fat chance of that when I actually started asking him questions he didn't even know the basics) and claimed that the Societies Life book was a very scientific and comprehensive piece of work. In fact, he claimed that if I could show otherwise, he would use the information in a public talk he was giving that related to the subject. I blew him off at first because this is just about the same odds of winning the lottery but he kept after me and then taunting me that I had no answer for him. So, I just decided to spend a few hours and read through it on the condition that we would "study" this book on my terms...that he had to respond in like to my rebuttal. He thinking that the "trooth" was invincible, immediately agreed and told me that he would even bring a friend of his along too (hmm, does this sound familiar?)
So, for your reference, if you ever need this material, here are my notes that you can compare with the pages in the Life book (more comments at end)
Chapter 2, P 4-9The basic argument presented is that evolution is not an established fact and that even evolutionary experts are in doubt and disagreement about evolution.
This is FALSE. There is no argument among the life scientists about evolution as a process but there is a lot of disagreement about the mechanisms of that process. Further, the original Darwinian theory is recognized today as only a crude step in the right direction and is not accepted as the complete model of evolution. There are also several epistemological mistakes in these paragraphs. For instance “experts” are quoted who are not even in the biological field and journalists. This is the same as me finding someone off the street to support my view. It has no validity.
P 10
The origin of life proof problem is stated. There are several theories as to the origin of life and experimental results that show the building materials needed can be easily created in the conditions that existed in early Earth. We also see complex amino acids in space and some have hypothesized that perhaps meteorites could have introduced life. This is an ongoing investigation but no clear answers exist. Still, the fact that something is not well understood or undiscovered doesn’t mean the line of thinking is invalid. Black holes were theorized decades in advance of their actual discovery, the same for orbiting extrasolar planets.
P 11-13
The writers are making a very old intellectual mistake here. The argument presented is the complexity issue. Essentially something as complex as an eye, ear or brain are so fantastic in their performance, surely this indicates that causal evolutionary development is false.
This line of reasoning of course is flawed. I will use this illustration to show you why. Let’s say you and I are walking along and we discover a brand new Sony Walkman radio laying on the ground. If I were to tell you that this piece of equipment could be easily made by just about anyone without any experience in electronics and without much in the way of technical training, you would think I was crazy, and rightly so. We both know that complex integrated circuits, computer chips, etc. make up this device. On the other hand, if we discovered an extremely simple and primitive crystal radio instead of the Walkman, then my story would be much more plausible.
The mistake then in the complexity issue is that the authors of this book are saying there was NO early primitive models of the eye, ear, and brain. This is completely false. We know of enormous numbers of such examples. We can easily find “eyes” in some organisms that only grossly detect light and ears that only hear very large sounds. The same holds true for simple neural nets for brains. An earthworm doesn’t do calculus! The primitive structures developed at different rates in different species and they were working structures that provided some advantage over species that didn’t have those. The reason that we still see the primitive structures in existence today is because of the environmental niche they followed (i.e. fish in dark caves don’t have well-developed eyes).
P 14-16
The argument made in these paragraphs is that the fossil record does not support evolution.
I’m afraid I have to disagree here. First they are making statements about early evolutionary theory which assumed a gradual transition for all species through the fossil record. New evidence points to casual mechanisms that show discrete jumps in many species. Still, we do find several cases of gradual evolution from the fossil record for some species. Further, when you look at the number of factors that must come into play for the proper preservation of a fossil, it is amazing we have the number and selection we do which show clear changes over time. However, fossil evidence is no longer as important as it once was because of genetic tracing of different species.
P 20
You should note we are talking about methods of evolution being in conflict not the process of evolution itself. It is the nature of the scientific method to have controversy and skepticism until the old theory is discredited.
P 21
Evidently the authors are completely ignorant of modern evolutionary theory. There are several new tools and theories that show the gaps are normal.
P 22
Natural selection is easily understandable as an important tool in the evolutionary process. When mutations developed that gave an advantage to an organism in its environment, that organism had a better chance to survive and pass on its genetic code to further generations. The accumulation of such changes is a primary factor in evolution. Yet the authors are completely in the dark about this!
P 23
Here we have another nonspecialist with his unprofessional opinion. In any case, Darwinian evolution as taught in the 50’s (which seems to be what the authors assume evolutionary theory still is) had been radically updated with tools and information that provide a much clearer understanding of the process.
P 24-25
I have never heard of this Francis Hitching. Is he some creationist or what? In any case, his arguments have holes big enough to drive a truck through. I’ve already mentioned that we now know that a continuous and progressive fossil record for all species is not to be expected because of DNA jumping. The function of genes is to pass along the evolutionary code to future generations. The fact that the genetic code is not unchangeable is easily observable by looking at human or animal mutations. What evolution scientist teaches random step by step mutations at the molecular level as being a mechanism of evolution. I don’t know of any. This guy is obviously an idiot.
Chapter 3
Geological science doesn’t support this general order at all! Please supply any evidence at all to back such a claim! It would take lots of research to refute this in detail but I will supply some of the relevant facts here from my memory of geophysics.
P 34 talks about an established order supposedly supported by scientists. Point (2) mentions a primitive earth enshrouded by heavy gases and water. In fact these gases were so thick that light could not penetrate the surface. We know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas much more potent than C02. If the atmosphere was so full of water vapor that light could not penetrate our planet would be very much like Venus with a surface temperature hot enough to boil lead. It would cause a runaway greenhouse effect that would heat up the surface to the point where chemical bonds would be broken and enormous amounts of other greenhouse gases would flood the atmosphere. Additionally, the Sun was much more active in its earlier history and would have increased the greenhouse effect substantially.
Later supposedly after all the water vapor and toxic chemicals somehow vanished the introduction of life was supposedly in this order: Plant life and next comes sea life and flying creatures followed by beasts and lastly man. Do you really think scientists support this order? LOL! Their claim that it is really makes me wonder where they are getting their information. This order is only possible if you believe in direct creationism. It certainly doesn’t match any evolutionary evidence we have.
To end the story of what happened, I printed out a copy for him and this other Witness. They stood there reading it a few minutes and I noticed his face was getting redder and redder. He tried to change the conversation to something else, but I called him on it. At that point he just told me that it doesn't make any difference at all to him if science doesn't support either the Bible or the WTB&TS. He said he knows in his heart it is right, see's it in how happy he is, all the usual line of crap. I just picked up my copy of the the Life book and threw it in a nearby trash can and walked away. He never talked to me again.
Skipper
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings." - William Shakespeare