JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LisaRose

  Yes, do keep the conversation going. He will not simply accept what you say, he is too resistant to that, and nobody likes to be lectured (even if he is doing the same) Try asking questions, as many have suggested. The JW beliefs about evolution are simplistic, he won't be able explain many of them if challenged. Keep in mind that your father probably studied as a Jehovah's Witness for many months if not years before accepting it, he will not simply accept evolution as true in a few conversations. If you lecture, he shuts down, his mind has been conditioned to reject any thought process that challenges his belief system. You have to draw him out, then build on that.

  A few examples:

  One thing the Watchtower teaches, or at least used to (been out a while) is that the fossil record doesn't show transitional animals, that the fossil record indicates only very separate and distinct species. This is patently untrue, but you will never get him to accept that. Instead, ask him why animals have vestigial features. Pigs, cattle, deer and dogs all have non functioning digits (dew claws) that serve no purpose, instead two four digits are used, the remaining digits moved up and to the back. It would be like building a bicycle with three wheels, one of which is too small to be of any functional use whatsoever, then attach it to the bike frame. No intelligent designer would do that, so why did God create vestigial features?

  Anti evolutionary thought teaches that animals cannot drastically change, that God created cows, for example, to be a cow, not a chicken. Yet this is disproved by artificial selection. If you look at a great Dane and a dachshund, they look very different, if you didn't know about dog breeding you would think they are different species. Yet these two share a common ancestor, the wolf. How is it that animals can change drastically by artificial selection in a few hundred years, but couldn't change more in a few million years by natural selection?
• 

  Apognophos

  If you do give him a response (I like LisaRose's suggestions, and would only add one of my own, that you talk about ERVs), please keep it short. It's better to be focused on one or two points so he has less wiggle room.

  Bizzarely he claimed that the worlds most famous athiest accepts the existence of god (he didn't say who) which is a bit weird.

  I can think of two possibilities:

  1. The urban legend that Darwin accepted God or recanted evolution on his deathbed. Truth be told, he may have become more religious in his last days, but he never identified as an atheist in the first place, preferring "agnostic". He saw no reason why God could not have initiated evolution. This one is not so much a falsehood as much as it's irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Biologists are not particularly concerned these days with what Darwin believed 150 years ago.

  2. More likely, he means that Richard Dawkins gave himself a 6 on a scale of 1-7 where 1 is confidence that God exists and 7 is confidence that God does not. Dawkins was simply acknowledging that it's not intellectually honest to claim that God absolutely cannot exist when we don't know everything. Therefore, he assigned himself a 6, but later said in an interview that it was more like 6.9.

  This is also not very relevant to a discussion of evolution. Once again, many people believe that God started life and let evolution do the rest. Don't get drawn into a debate over atheism. Separate the issues of theism, evolution, and abiogenesis, and only talk about evolution.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  It looks like his mind is shut. It could well be that, to him, seeing as he is the older and wiser one, your father, he sees you as some arrogant, know-it-all upstart. That's why knowing when to back off or yield, allowing him to think he's teaching you and asking him pertinent, insightful questions may be the best approach with him.

  Bizzarely he claimed that the worlds most famous athiest accepts the existence of god (he didn't say who) which is a bit weird.

  That would be the late Antony Flew.

  he then said that no one has ever been able to tell him what the evidence for evolution is and asked me to explain, in my own words. what the proof is that life started without intelligent design.

  It sounds like he's making the common mistake of conflating evolution (the explanation of why life on earth is so diverse) with abiogenesis (where/how life originated). Click on this link.

  should I bite?

  Only if you really know your stuff and can simplify it sufficiently so that one or two key points stick. Perhaps explore how JWs accept microevolution which involves the same processes as macroevolution but in a far reduced timescale? Just an idea.
• 

  TheStumbler

  Yeah, I know evolution fairly well, read most of the well known popular books on the subject and know most of the common creationist arguments Inside Out.

  I forgot to to mention - he came out with the classic 'just a theory' claim.

  I've explained to him several times the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and that a theory in science has a different meaning from its common usage. Its frustrating - I've already asked him 'If it is unwise to believe theories then why do you believe in the germ theory of disease and why do you use GPS whivh is dependent of Einstein's theory of relativity'. This stumped him obviously but he continues to bang on about 'theories'.

  I thought I might talk about ERVs and Tictaalic and ask why these lines of evidence have never been discussed in a Watchtower. I'll post up my response when I've written it.
• 

  TheStumbler

  I know he's not going to change his belief that he is not a creationist. It would require admitting the Watchtower is wrong. If he is willing disagree with the Oxford English Dictionary, Camebridge and Webster dictionaries, encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia and the American Academy of Sciences then nothing I say will sway him.

  I thought I might close down the conversation. I think I'm going to tell that I am not going to respond to any emails about creationism until he can tell me what mistake there is in this syllagolism

  syllagolism:

  1. (Major premise); creationism is a belief in creation.

  2. (Minor premise ); Jehovh's witnesses believe in creation

  3. (Conclusion); Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Creationism.

  either; the major premise (1) is incorrect; the minor premise (2) is incorrect; or the conclusion (3) does not logicall follow from the 1 and 2
• 

  TheStumbler

  You know, I am aware that I come across as lecturing and no one likes to be lectured at. I know I nee. To reduce my word count but I find that his questions contain so many misconceptions that I need to explain basic concepts in some detail. A misconception can be contained in sentence but correcting a misconception can take thousands of words or even whole books. How do others deal with this?

  Here's my preface to my email about the evidence for evolution:

  your first question is whether evolution is a fact or a theory. The answer is it is both. This may seem like a contradiction in terms but the word 'theory' has a different meaning in science than it does in every day use.

  In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. For example, gravity is a theory but it is also a fact. If I drop a ball it will fall to the ground - this is an observable fact. The explanation of how gravity works however is a theory (and an incomplete one). The fact that the explanation of gravity is a theory in no way calls into question the existence of gravity. The ball still falls to the ground.

  In science a theory is really just another word for explanation, it is not an admission by scientists that they are unsure or just speculating. For a scientific theory to become widely accepted it has to be confirmed to an extremely high degree with supporting evidence and rigorous testing. Scientific theories can never become facts because there is always the chance that a new discovery will invalidate them in some way but some theories become so well established that it is unlikely they will ever be overturned completely. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a good example of this.

  Einstein's theories have proven so successful and accurate that they are used in GPS sattelitre navigation systems to calculate the relative positions of sattelites. If Einstein's theories were wrong then GPS wouldn't work and yet Einstein's theories are still considered 'theories'.

  The idea that it is unwise to believe in a theories is really based on an Misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. In reality saying this is the same as saying that it is unwise to believe in well substantiated scientific explanations but no one would agree that this is true. We all accept scientific explanations as true in our every day lives.

  For example it is not unwise to believe in the germ theory of disease and it is not unwise to believe in the theories of flight aerodynamics that explain how an aircraft wing creates lift. We know these thing work - the theory refers to the explanation of how they work.

  So how does this apply to evolution - how is evolution both a fact and a theory? Well, the evidence that species evolve over is strong that scientists consider the historical occurrence of evolution is a fact. the 'Theory of Evolution' refers to the explanation of the mechanisms that drive evolutionary change.

  There may be valid reason to doubt evolution is true but its status as a 'theory' is not one of them.

  Your second question asks for proof that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is vast and would be impossible to summarise in just one email. What I will do instead is describe the three lines of evidence that personally convinced me that evolution is true. I don't think expect this will convince you but I hope it least helps you understand why others accept evolution as true. It might even help you sharpen your own arguments against evolution.

  Before I do that however I need to clarify what evolution is. In your email you said that no one has been able to explain to you what the evidence for evolution is but then you asked for proof that life started without intelligent design.

  It is a misconception that evolution attempts to explain how life started. The origin of life and the evolution of life over time are seperate fields of study. The chemical processes that scientists hypothesise led to the emergence of life are quite different to the mechanisms that drive evolutionary change so seperate theories are required.

  Personally I don't know how life started. I think it is possible that life originated through chemical processes but it is also possible that it was created. I just don't know and there is nothing wrong with admitting that when there is insufficient evidence to form a conclusion either way.

  so, what is evolution? It is the change in inherited characteristics in biological populations over time.
• 

  Vidiot

  TheStumbler - "You are really clutching at semantic straws now."

  Yup.

  AFAIC, once you've resorted to semantic gymnastics to support your argument, you've lost the f**king argument. It's a form of cheating.

  And if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs aren't worth defending.
• 

  TD

  This is mostly intended as humor, but your father's assertion actually does make sense in a convoluted sort of way.

  Jehovah's Witnesses believe that life as we know it today was created, but simultaneously, Jehovah's Witnesses reject the arguments they put forth as proof of this.

  The reason this happens is because Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the entire antediluvian world was vegetarian and that predation is in some vague way connected to the fall of Man. So, while Jehovah's Witnesses might say that "Design equals a Designer," they don't really believe it because that would only apply to vegetarian examples of design.

  For example is the relationship between the shark and cleaner fish the product of design? How could it be? The shark is a predator and the cleaner fish is cleaning up scraps of flesh and parasites from the shark's throat and gills, both of which are clearly not vegetarianism.

  So while Jehovah's Witnesses believe things were created, they don't really believe the body of inquiry dedicated to proving and explaining this (Creationism)
• 

  sir82

  The shark is a predator and the cleaner fish is cleaning up scraps of flesh and parasites from the shark's throat and gills, both of which are clearly not vegetarianism.

  Prior to Noah's flood, the cleaner fish cleaned up the scraps of coconut husk that the shark used his teeth to crack. The coconuts were from trees that grew near the water; the coconuts fell and then floated out to sea.

  Next question?

  You laugh, but I can think of a good half-dozen JWs who would come up with some variation of the above as an explanation.
• 

  konceptual99

  Prior to Noah's flood, the cleaner fish cleaned up the scraps of coconut husk that the shark used his teeth to crack. The coconuts were from trees that grew near the water; the coconuts fell and then floated out to sea.

  Next question?

  You laugh, but I can think of a good half-dozen JWs who would come up with some variation of the above as an explanation.

  I know a Witness (not that old) who still thinks dinosaurs were alive at the time of flood and were there to clean up dead animals.