At most only a few hundred of animals could be cared for in the Ark. So how could I deny evolution, stating that the 5-20 million species of earth were slowly evolving over hundreds of millions of years, but then preach that the same 5-20 million species evolved in only 4000 years from only a few hundred of animals? That just doesn't make any sense! And the watchtower library is totally silent on this issue.
Congratulations for using your brain! :)
Notice what it says in the Insight book: "Some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 'kinds' of mammals, 74 'kinds' of birds, and 10 'kinds' of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today" (Vol. 1, p. 165). And yet they criticize the idea that new species could arise via "macroevolution", which as summarized by the Watchtower Society assumes that "mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species" and that "natural selection leads to the production of new species" (September 2006 Awake!, p. 13). This same article decidedly claims that macroevolution does not exist, yet it must exist if 43 "kinds" of mammals diversified into the 4,260 species that exist today, and presumably this is macroevolution occurring at a pace far, far beyond that assumed by biologists and from initial breeding populations far, far below that which would be considered viable for any endangered species to survive, and diversifying in the wake of a global cataclysm that destroyed all original habitats. And the Society also could not claim that this post-Flood macroevolution represented new creative activity on God's part since they also teach that the creative days are lengthy epochs and that God rested from his creative activity on the seventh day, which began once he created Adam and Eve. So if this macroevolution is not the result of God's creative work, then what natural mechanisms are responsible for it, if not the very ones the Society claims COULD NOT produce new species.