ARE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CREATIONISTS OR EVOLUTIONISTS?

by Viva la Vida 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viva la Vida

  Mohrb - I was just thinking on this: why ask young JWs at school to defend creation by attacking evolution if, in fact, JWs believe in evolution? Wouldn't be more fair for young JWs to say: "we believe in evolution, but that the process was set up by God"?

  Another question: according to JWs "readily observable" idea of evolution, are dogs and wolfs of the same "kind"? What about cats and lions? and Kangaroos and Koalas?

  BTW - The Catholic Church has accepted evolution for decades, and JWs bashed it for that... what is the reason if JWs believe in evolution too?
• 

  TD

  Is there any stripe of Creationist anywhere that does not allow for variation within a, "Kind?"

  If not, then your reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Creationists simply do not exist at all...
• 

  cofty

  They are 100% creationists. They do not understand the first thing about evolution.
• 

  Simon

  Most creationists will use evolution / natural selection to attempt to reconcile the fantasy bible-stories with facts.

  The best example is the number of animals in the ark. When the bible was written it gave the dimensions (well, in vague units but 'good enough') but of course they had no idea of the sheer quantity of animal life on the planet outside of their small area of experience. So we have two facts that are completely at odds - the size of the ark to fit all the animals in and a massive number of animals that could never have fit into such a space even if they were liquidized and poured in from the top, never mind survived for weeks on end.

  So creationists will claim evolution created the diversity after the flood but in a much shorter time than evolutionists even believe it all happend!

  But then they will deny the possibility that the same processes could possibly have led to the emergence of differenct species over vastly longer time periods.

  What many fail to comprehend is that creationists (and the religious in general) are often not looking for a comprehensive explanation to life, the universe and everything where each fact has to fit in with what is already known and what has been proven.

  They are happy to leap between ideas and as long as they have something to argue the immediate point against them they they will take it, regardless of whether it totally contradicts some other 'belief' that they have.
• 

  Viva la Vida

  TD – According to WT just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles; or at best 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” produced all the species that we see today after the flood (that is 4000 years ago). I think that is stretching a bit the concept of variation between a "kind".

  Because the WT didn't list the “kinds” they referred to, we can't know for certain what these are. But due to the reduced number of “kinds” they calculated, I can assumed then that horses, asses, and zebras are of the same "kind" or have a common pre-flood ancestor and that after the flood they evolved in different species. If that is the case, can the WT assert that the horses’ legs were designed as stated in October's Awake?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I agree with you, cofty, JWs don't know the first thing about evolution. The Society, willfully it seems, consistently confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

  In answer to the OP JWs are neither, IMO. They will do and say anything to promote the Society - no more, no less.
• 

  TD

  According to WT just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles...

  That particular piece of wackiness did not originate with the JWs nor is it unique to them. It's very typical of Fundy/YEC flavors of Creationsim. To be fair, you've cited a very low-ball Creationist estimate of "Ark kinds" as the JW position, when Insight actually keeps things comfortably vague by acknowleding that "Others" (i.e. Other fundy Creationists) had made higher estimates and doesn't take a definite stand by stating which end of the spectrum JW's actually agree with. Insight On The Scriptures is 25+ years old now and Creationist estimates of "Ark kinds" have steadily gone up since then, so I'm not sure if the JW's would actually agree with even the higher estimate anymore.

  When pressed, most Creationists will hide behind the difficulties of defining species consistently. You may not think the color of a male parrot's feathers matter very much, but if it makes a huge difference to 90% female parrots, a new species may emerge based on color alone. A similar situation exists with plants. Species can be defined simply by what time of year the plant blooms. There are cactus species, for example that are very, very similar except for the fact that one blooms in March and the other blooms in September, so cross pollination is almost impossible.

  But I do understand your point here. JW's sometimes, through sheer ignorance embrace basics precepts of evolution with open arms. A good example is their belief in an all vegetarian antediluvian ecology and their goofy explanations for why some animals eat meat today. One publication will praise scanvengers as "Jehovah's natural sanitation squad" and claim that this is proof of a wise Creator, while another publication will claim that all animals were originally vegetarian. Eating meat is presented as a deviation from Jehovah's "Original purpose" so we are left to conclude that Jehovah's "Sanitation squad" actually did evolve on it's own after all.
• 

  Vidiot

  LoveUnitHateExams - "The Society, willfully it seems, consistently confuses evolution with abiogenesis."

  Of course the "confusion" is willful (i.e. on purpose), because there's no genuinely honest way that evolution can actually be refuted, anymore.

  x

  The evidence and arguments that support evolution have become so numerous and compelling over the years, that at this point, the WTS's only recourse is misquoting, straw man arguments, cherry-picking science, and cribbing other creationists' flawed and/or debunked arguments...

  ...all "dirty-lawyer" tactics, i.e. cheating.

  x

  And (like I keep saying over and over again regarding this subject)...

  ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
• 

  Viva la Vida

  Thanks TD. It seems you really know about this.

  I think as someone said they are nothing... but a business. However, I think this kind of analysis can help some people to wake up.