DC 2010 Release - The Origin of Life and its many misquotes

by Designer Stubble 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Designer Stubble

  I have just started working my way through the new publication “The Origin of Life – 5 Questions worth asking”. It is completely appalling. It is at the very most six grade level and just the first references I verified (which most dubs don’t do) have been taken out of context, are completely misquoted or in the example of using the Encyclopedia Britannica – a dated version is used rather than the most recent one, to align with what they want to write, rather than aligned with the newest research.

  Here is one example, taken from page 12, which quotes Microbiologist Ruda Popa: “The Complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.” Here is where the quote ends.

  However looking up the reference in the book “Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, page 126-127, the full quote reads:

  “The Complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible. Most scientists now believe that life originated in a number of smaller and probabilistically likelier steps. Instead of being one big chance like event, life might actually be an accretion of a series of events emerging at different moments in time.”

  Sounds rather different to me!

  Then scientists are portrayed as not believing that life is created, but that they believe that life arose by chance in a fashion not yet fully understood. Where as the Bible simply states: Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. (Hebrews 3:4).

  The brochure starts out with a completely stupid introduction illustration. It talks about parents hesitating to tell young children where babies come from…then says: “Just as many parents feel awkward…some scientists seem reluctant to discuss an even more fundamental question – Where did life come from?

  It is going to be painful and embarrassing to go through this brochure, but I want to get all misquotes and inaccuracies listed properly, so that once it is released over here, I have my information ready at hand to wipe the brochure totally out.
• 

  designs

  The Society is stuck in intellectual purgatory. Caught between the Fundamentalists on one end and Science on the other.

  It ain't pretty.
• 

  rocketman

  "Sounds rather different to me!"

  Me too Designer Stubble. Looks like they're still taking liberty with quotes just as they did with the Creation book.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  I don't "get" why it is so hard for religious people to simply accept that even IF they are RIGHT and there IS A GOD, that he almost certainly used evolution to differentiate the species of life we see on earth today. There is NO REASON for the two beliefs to be incompatible other than religion not wanting to share its glory and authority as the true source of all information with science.
• 

  jwfacts

  Thanks DS for the great observations. I look forward to any other similar findings from the book.
• 

  sir82

  Well, good to know that their MO of chopping up quotes just to get the "good stuff" is unchanged.

  So long as the stuff between the quote marks is accurately transcribed, they are completely and utterly unconcerned with context or meaning.
• 

  PrimateDave

  This brochure attempts to put the science behind the theory of evolution on the defensive. Really, though, the science doesn't need defending. It may need explaining in a way that even a lay person can understand at times.

  What I am tempted to do with this brochure is put the WTS on the defensive by attacking their journalistic integrity, line by line. What Designer Stubble posted above is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

  An in depth analysis of this shouldn't degrade into a arguments about theism/atheism, the Bible/Christianity, or even Evolution/ID. It's about the fact that they lie. The WTS calls what they have "The Truth," and yet they lie. Once that fundamental fact is established, nothing else they write has any authority.
• 

  teel

  Mad Sweeney: In case of JWs? I'd say pride. When Russel started the religion 130 years ago, evolution wasn't really hard to doubt, in fact most people doubted it. Then they got stuck with it, like with other beliefs they fought to keep, for example 1914. Some other religions have no problems at least flirting with the idea of "intelligent evolution" - evolution directed by God.
• 

  Gladring

  Something else to note - on almost every page there is a footnote to say "this scientist is not a creationist and his remarks are not intended to say that he doubts evolutionary theory". Perhaps this is so when you comment on the misrepresentation, the JW can say "look they say here that that's not what the scientist meant". Perhaps it is to cover their legal asses. But why bother printing a brochure and then rendering it impotent with so many disclaimers?

  They have also included a complete bibliography to make it even easier to track the misquotes.

  I think they are trying to address some of the objections raised against the older creation books, but they can't make a case for creation without misrepresenting the scientists quoted.

  The brochure may fool those who already believe, but anyone impartial who checks the references will not be deceived.
• 

  Gladring

  Teel - Back in 1914 the Bible Students were teaching that evolution is fact and in harmony with the Genesis account. Only in relation to man did they claim special creation. They still held this position in the 1920s.

  Does anyone know why the did an about face on this? Or when exactly it changed?