Looks like I'm a bit late to this thread. And it looks like this thread has evolved (pun intended) into a discussion about evolution/creationism.
I find it fascinating that now, in the year 2010, large portions of the population will believe the word of clergy over the word of scientists...on matters of science! And that's exactly what the creationists (such as JWs) do.
Oh, they claim that they're taking God's word over the word of godless scientists. But when you dig deeper, that's not exactly the case. For example, the Genesis creation account clearly states that the earth was formed and populated over the course of six literal days. This can be seen in the mention of "evening and morning" associated with each day.
Also, when he gave the command to observe the Sabbath, God said "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11).
So, it's clear from the plain text of the Bible that the writers meant that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. Anything else is simply ignoring the plain language of scripture.
But many modern religions, such as the WT/JW faith, teach that the "days" were symbolic--I believe the WTS refers to them as "creative days." When I was raised a JW, I was taught from the publications that each "creative day" is 7,000 years long (and I have no clue where that comes from).
So, back to my point, this is an example of creationists taking the word of their clergy over the word of the Bible...and over the word of science.
Personally, as a non-scientist, I'm going to give science the benefit of the doubt when compared to the clergy. Clergy (such as the WTS leaders and others) have a strong incentive to discredit evolution/natural selection. If their flock adopts evolution/natural selection, then the clergy is out of a job!
Of course, this doesn't mean that I have "faith" that the currently accepted theories of mainstream biology are the end-all, be-all gospel truth. Reputable biologists wouldn't even say such a thing. That's one of the great properties of the scientific method--when performed properly, it is constantly re-evaluating existing understandings. Not to say it's infallible, but I think it's a much better way to approach things than by "faith."