I heard a public talk last week that was all about evolution and how it dishonours God, and it struck me just how out of date and confused many of the ideas presented were. The speaker used the old example of the giraffe's neck, but made the classic mistake of mixing up Darwin's theory of natural selection and Lamarckism by poking fun at the idea a neck stretched through use could be passed on to offspring. I wondered how an otherwise intelligent person (as this speaker is) could make such an elementary mistake.
It occurs to me that the Society has been writing less and less against evolution in recent years, so there is less up-to-date ammunition for brothers to draw upon in talks. This is demonstrated most dramatically if you compare the old blue Creation book (from the 1980s) with the newer Creator book. (1998) The blue Creation book was full of old-style arguments against evolution, talking about speciation and breeds of dogs and so on. Belief in God in this book is tied inextricably with rejection of evolution by natural selection. The new Creator book on the other hand has a completely different focus. It hardly discusses evolution in trying to prove the existence of God. Instead it relies upon 1) an argument about God giving meaning to life 2) God being the cause of the big bang 3) God being the origin of life (about living cells and non-living matter rather than about the evolution of species) and 4) human consciousness as an argument for God.
Not only has the main proof-for-God textbook totally changed from focussing on evolution to more general arguments for God, but articles in the magazines also discuss the process of evolution far less than they used to. Instead of in-depth refutations of natural selection, the Awake! magazine has taken to quoting the likes of Michael Behe, a promoter of intelligent design who nevertheless accepts much of evolution by natural selection as taught by the mainstream scientific community. So might the Witnesses be prepared to accept evolution in the near future?
They have already staked out a position which is slightly more reasonable than the "young earth" creationists by stating that the earth is much older than 6000 years. This means they run into somewhat less trouble against various scientific disciplines than the more hardline Bible literalists do. Could they go one step further and accept evolution for all animals, but claim that humans are the only direct creation by God? Such a position would be fairly easy for them to harmonize with the Genesis account. In fact as I understand it that was the position of Charles Taze Russell and the Bible Students until the mid-to-late 1920s. They taught that God used evolution to produce all the species of animals, but that Adam and Eve were created directly by God around 6000 years ago.
Personally I think such a move would be a masterstroke because, let's face it, only cranks and nutcases reject evolution these days. Silly arguments about giraffes' necks might have convinced in the 1950s or even the 1980s - but nowadays? Total rejection of evolutionary theory is beginning to look just a bit imbecilic. So they could solve that problem by accepting most of evolutionary theory, yet claim that God still had a role in starting life in the first place, and that humans are a special case, being created directly by God in the recent past, thus returning basically to the stance they took in the early part of the twentieth century.
To recap why the Witnesses might/should come round to accepting evolution:
1. They have been discussing creation versus evolution less and less in the literature, instead focussing on other proofs for God's existence such as the big bang and quoting intelligent design proponents who accept evolution such as Behe.
2. They would be returning to basically the position the early Bible Students took, so it could be presented as a return to earlier wisdom in much the same way the flip-flop on the "superior authorities" was.
3. It would be consistent with their desire to be seen as more reasonable than "young earth" creationists and fundamentalists generally.
4. It could easily be harmonized with the Genesis account by saying that all animal species arose by natural selection (Gen 1), but humans were created directly (Gen 2).
5. Surely at some point it just becomes too ridiculous to reject evolution by natural selection in its entirety, a more nuanced engagement with the evidence must be on the cards at some point.
So what do you think, is it likely?