SLIM, I was thinking the same think recently. For the reasons you mentioned, as well as for several articles that use double-speak. As an example, the February Awake has a short article that ends with a phrase that goes like this: life only comes from pre-existing life (do not have the magazine with me an cannot produce an exact quote). That type of language makes me think...it does not deny evolution. I have insisted that either some outrageous new light or some absurd commands are on the way, because there have been multiple recent advices to obey the Slave even when the instructions seem absurd, to act when told even if the instructions do not sound resonable. Some absurdity is on its way. Of course, accepting evolution would be the right thing to do, because it is undeniable, but the point is that, after hammering it for so long, it would mean an incredible transformation of the cult.
Might the Watchtower Society be preparing accept EVOLUTION soon?
by slimboyfat 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
jwfacts
When I read the title I thought "no way", but after reading your arguments I think you make some great points.
Anyone with any degree of education will find it very difficult to accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account (and flood account). Evolution is largely a proven fact, yet can meld with believe in God and the Bible quite nicely. The WTS Society is already a step ahead of creationists by not teaching a 6000 year old earth. I remember well when they steered away from saying the creative days were 6000 years each (or was it 7000 years each) and made them open ended.
Interestingly Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 list the creative days in different orders so already there is a reason to take them figuratively. It would be possible to say that God was the instigator of the big bang, and each stage of evolution as outlined by the creative days. They could even teach the evolution of man, since there is significant proof from several of the sciences that Australian Aboriginals have been around for 50,000 years. They just need to say that the final creative day represents the "civilisation" of man.
On the otherhand, what is the benefit to the WTS in becoming more open. Are openminded people the type that they want to attact; I think not. The ideal follower is one that accepts doctrine without question. The ideal follower is someone willing to accept Creationism. I am not sure if trying to tie too closely with Science and reality is going to be beneficial for a high control religion.
-
slimboyfat
I think accepting animal evolution could be a relatively easy and painless transition if presented well. Human evolution however would be more difficult to harmonize with the idea that Adam and Eve were created perfect and given the choice to obey God or not. Since Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in predestination it would be far more difficult for them to accept that Adam and Eve are figurative and that humans evolved over millions of years than it is for other Christian groups. If you believe that God predestined fallen humanity then in a certain sense it does not matter whether that was effected through the direct creation of Adam or through millions of years of evolution. If on the other hand you believe as Jehovah's Witnesses do that God gave the original pair a genuine choice and that God chose not to know what the outcome would be, then it becomes somewhat more difficult to give up on a literal Adam and Eve for the narrative to make sense.
I am not saying that accepting animal evolution while claiming that humans are a direct creation has scientific support. I am sure there is probably just as much evidence for human evolution as there is for evolution in general. I am just saying that it might be a more attractive more nuanced position for the Witnesses to adopt rather than the flat rejection of natural selection at present. Plus it would be a return to the stance the Witnesses first adopted in response to evolution in the days of Russell, and the Witnesses have shown a tendency to return to earlier positions on occasion.
-
slimboyfat
I wonder, does anyone else know, when was the last time either the Watchtower or the Awake! actually published a detailed criticism of evolutionary theory? My guess is that it was probably some time ago now.
As Hiddenwindow mentioned, now the focus seems to be on the argument that "life always comes from life": wording which interestingly does not necessarily exclude the possibility that God created by means of evolution.
-
oompa
i was in ny museum of natural history last week....and in the caveman section (and the cave women had nice racks btw)....the info said that some chimps or apes dna was 99% identical to man...or a close fraction of the number.....i did not know that....oompa
somehow...the missing one percent of ape dna is found only in the governing body.......oompa
-
slimboyfat
Charles Taze Russell explains the Bible and evolution are not in conflict and that only humans are described as a direct creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBmM9GkEqbM&feature=PlayList&p=5F79109685352AE0&playnext=1&index=8
-
jwfacts
If on the other hand you believe as Jehovah's Witnesses do that God gave the original pair a genuine choice and that God chose not to know what the outcome would be, then it becomes somewhat more difficult to give up on a literal Adam and Eve for the narrative to make sense.
Good point. One of the main concepts of WT theology is that man was living forever, and then died because of sin. Evolution of man does away with that, as prehistoric man was dying. So there will have to remain a concept that God created Adam and Eve as a final act.
-
Room 215
Old Charles Taze Russell allowed for the possibility of evolution, at least as far as the animals were concerned (Check "The New Creation", page 37)
-
BurnTheShips
Realizing the Creation book was incorrect was one of my first steps on the way out of JWism.
BTS
-
slimboyfat
Notice in the youtube video of the Photodrama of Creation I posted above Russell claims that crocodiles are amphibians.
The "world's foremost Bible scholar" he may have been, (um is that right? ) but no one would have accused him of being a scientist I think.