Russell endorsed Biological Evolution

by peacefulpete 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I had previously not read of Russell's long time endorsement of a evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. He and the Bible Students sought to find some convoluted way to retain their belief in creation while yet appearing modern and scientific. In brief the doctrine was that God may have in fact used evolution for all but human creation and once the creation was complete He put the brakes on the process. Evolution was no longer possible after the creation of man.

    The New Creation:

    Let us not contend for more than the Scripture record demands. The Bible does not assert that God created separately and individually the myriad kinds of fish and reptiles; but merely that divine influence, or spirit, brooded, and by divine purpose the sea brought forth its creatures of various kinds. The processes are not declared--one species may, under different conditions, have developed into another; or from the same original protoplasm different orders of creatures may have developed under differing conditions. No man knoweth, and it is unwise to be dogmatic. It is not for us to dispute that even the protoplasm of the palaeozoic slime may not have come into existence through chemical action of the highly mineralized waters of the seas. What we do claim is, that all came about as results of divine intention and arrangement, and hence, were divine creations, whatever were the channels or agencies. (pp. 35, 36)

    The Watch Tower, Dec. 1, 1912, pp. 372, 373.

    In the Third Day, or Epoch, under divine direction.... vegetation sprang up--grass, bushes, trees, with their seeds and fruits. The account does not say that God made so many different kinds of grasses and fruit, trees, etc. It declares that under Divine command the Earth brought forth these various kinds. Nothing in the Genesis account would interfere with an evolutionary theory with regards to vegetation....

    On the Fifth Day the waters began to swarm with living, moving creatures. Next came fowl and great sea monsters. Here again a measure of evolution is suggested by the statement that "the waters brought forth abundantly" the various kinds, under divine supervision. Only in the case of man does the Bible distinctly declare a personal creation.

    The creation of land animals marks the Sixth Epoch-Day. Fish and fowl took precedence, as scientists agree. Again we read that: "the earth brought forth," but we also read that the Lord directed the matter in the development of the various kinds or varieties.

    It was at the very end of the Sixth Day when God created man. The earth did not bring him forth....

    HOW DIFFERENT the statement respecting man's creation from that describing the creation of plants and the lower animals which the seas and the earth brought forth! Man's creation was premeditated.

    The Golden Age, Nov. 12, 1919, p. 103

    One theory regarding the creation (excepting man) by a process of evolution, to which we see no serious objection, we briefly state as follows: It assumes that the various species of the present are fixed and unchangeable as far as nature or kind is concerned,.... This theory further assumes that none of these fixed species were originally created so, but that in the remote past they were developed from the earth, and by gradual processes of evolution from one form to another. These evolutions, under divinely established laws... may have continued until the fixed species, at the present time seen, were established, beyond which change is impossible...

    The Golden Age, Feb. 18, 1920, p. 341

    Only in respect to man does the Bible declare a special, direct creation of God. The statements of Genesis in respect to lower creatures rather favor something along the lines of specialized evolution.... the beginning of life came from the waters, and later extended to the birds, and still later to the land animals.... under divine supervision various orders of creation were brought to a state of development and fixity of species..

    The Watch Tower, Jan. 1, 1907, pp. 12, 13.

    As for the lower animals we will not on their behalf quarrel with the deductions of the evolutionists,... If an evolutionary process did take place in the past we hold that it was so under divine supervision and guidence--that the different species of plants and animals were brought to perfection, so that no further evolutionary processes in them is possible. On the other hand be it noted that the Scriptural account might be understood to rather favor the Evolution theory in respect to the lower creatures. For instance the statement, "God said, let the earth bring forth grass..." But when we come to the creation of man there is no suggestion that this was a bringing forth or a development.... Whoever believes Adam was developed from a monkey is in violent conflict with the faith once delivered...

    Here, again, we need not quarrel needlessly with Evolutionists. We will concede that, if God chose, he could have brought all the different species of animal life into being by a development of one from the other, or he could have developed each species separately from the original protozoan slime. We know not what method he adopted.... whatever way God chose to accomplish it, he has fixed animal species, each "after its own kind" in such a manner that they do not change... (pp. 36, 37)

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Sorry about the broken and confusing formatting, I don't know what happened or how to edit on this forum. Help appreciated.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Boy I don't understand why the edits keep getting ignored but the point is there. The last block of text is from the New creation book.

  • RR
    RR

    and your point is?

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    WT history is relevant and interesting to many people here. The WT's often stated stance that they never endorsed evolution un like other apostate churches is history revisionism. I also find it interesting that the early roots of the church were more progressive in this regard than what is currently held.

  • agonus
    agonus

    Christ Almighty, yet ANOTHER departure from what Russell originally taught! How in the hell do these guys claim ANY kind of spiritual heritage from him? They've changed damn near everything! What's really sad is, the more I read Russell's material the more intellectually and spiritually bankrupt the org seems. And considering most folks' opinion of Russell (he was no saint in my book), that's saying a LOT!

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    Among many things it is clear that Russell was quite ignorant of the evolutionary process, he didn't really support evolution

    in the scientific sense but that evolution had only occurred by God's own divine supervision and guidance.

    In other words he manipulated the scientific theory from within to support the bible's version of creation.

    Which really isn't surprising since the theory went right up against what he learned for the greater part of his life and which he

    had already made a big personal investment financially to his own religious theology.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    Even the photodrama of creation had a slide that mentioned how all the OTHER forms of earth life may have come about evolution. But they couldn't drop their belief of a literal direct creation of humans and the whole incident in the Garden of Eden.

    If that were myth then they'd have to rethink their beliefs on Original Sin, the Ransom and Atonement. The current WTS Teaching committee may at some point revert back to Russel's weak acceptance of evolution but I doubt they have the creative minds to deal with the implications of incorporating human evolution into their dogma.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit