Yesterday my wife and I enjoyed one of our regular days out at Edinburgh - movie, lunch, walk, meal etc.
In the late afternoon while Mrs Cofty went shopping I had an hour at the excellent Museum of Scotland and arranged to meet up outside the National Gallery on Princes Street. On my way back I saw the JW trolley was at the usual spot on the Royal Mile. There was an older man and a young woman standing well back trying hard to look inconspicuous. Since I had 20 minutes to make the 5 minute walk down the Playfair Steps I couldn't resist stopping for a chat. I stood looking over the literature on offer while the JWs did their best to pretend it all had nothing to do with them.
As I had hoped there was plenty creationist propaganda on display so after a minute or so I smiled and said hello and the conversation went roughly as follows... (The woman did not get involved despite my efforts to include her. It transpired the man was called John)
Me - So are you creationists?
John - No.
Me - Really? You have a lot of creationist literature.
John - We don't believe the world was made in 7 days.
Me - Ok but you are still creationists aren't you? I mean you don't accept evolution do you?
John - No we don't believe in evolution.
Me - How do you manage that with so much great information available about the evidence? Have you ever read a book that presents the evidence for evolution?
John - (Long pause) Yes
Me - Well done, I respect that. Which books have you read?
John - Well you know the ones that Darwin wrote.
Me - Hmmm ok. Those are 150 years old. Which of Darwin's books did you read?
John - Well it's quoted in one of these brochures here.
Me - Oh, so you mean you have read a quote in a creationist book. What I meant was have you read any science books that explain the evidence for evolution?
John - No I haven't read any of those.
Me - If I was to tell you that I had read lots of stuff written by ex-JWs, I had never read any of your books, but I had decided that your religion was all wrong would that be fair?
John - No
Me - In fact if I did that it would be intellectually dishonest wouldn't it?
John - (awkward silence)
Me - You are out here dismissing evolution but you admit you haven't ever read a single word of the evidence. Is that honest?
John - But who says evolution is true?
Me - Tens of thousands of scientist from fields like biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, etc
John - Yes MEN say it's true!
Me - (being deliberately obtuse) Actually a lot of top scientists are women.
John - But I trust the bible and it says (quotes Rom1:20 with emphasis on INEXCUSABLE!)
Me - But what does the natural world really tell us about "god's invisible qualities"? Every animal you have ever seen died in agony of predation, parasites, disease, starvation or exposure. Viruses kill millions every year? There are parasites that eat a child's eyes from the inside. What do these things say about god's qualities?
John - But what about the grass and photosynthesis?
Me - Grass doesn't feel pain. I don't care about grass. You said that creation tells us about god. Why did he make a world where everything dies in agony? Why did he make viruses?
John - MEN made viruses!
Me - That is simply not true. You seem to have a view of the natural world that is straight out of Disney rather than reality.
John - Well I think that is enough of this conversation now thanks.
Me - No I'm just getting started, I'm really enjoying talking to you. I think it's a pity you haven't read the evidence for evolution I think you would be fascinated by it. Let me ask you if you were serving on a jury and an expert told you that they had examined a sample taken from the crime scene and studied the DNA and could say with certainty that it belonged to the accused would you believe it?
John - Yes I think so
Me - But the evidence that shows different species evolved from a common ancestor is exactly the same sort of evidence.
I spent about 5 minutes sharing a few highlights of the genetic evidence for evolution.
John constantly tried to change the subject to talk about the origins of life and frequently tried to link evolution with the social implications of "survival of the fittest". I was able to explain the difference between the biology that explains how we got here and the subject of morality and how we ought to organise society.
I was able to clear up some of his misconceptions and give him a taste of the subject. He had calmed down and started to be less defensive so I decided it was time to come clean and told him I was a former pioneer and elder. He wanted to know why I had left so I reminded him of the '95 debacle. He had been attracted into the organisation by the '75 excitement so he had some sympathy. He tried to claim that GB had never said anything definite about '75 but I was able to give him a few quotes from memory.
I told him the organisation was not the one I had grown up with. The emphasis on money was unthinkable when I was young and now they even have cartoons designed to manipulate children to hand over their pocket money! He tried to excuse it on the basis that the organisation is growing rapidly until I reminded him about how many branches had been closed and congregations merged.
We discussed the shambles that is the Chelmsford project. I asked him how it could possibly be wise to buy a chemical dump and suggested that if he could find out who signed off on it I would like to sell them the George IV Bridge. His attitude by now was very humble and sympathetic. It was clear he was distressed by some of these issues.
He asked if I ever had a personal relationship with "Jehovah" so I was able to explain about how sincere I had been and that my problem was over doctrines. In about 3 minutes I was able to explain the reason why blood transfusions are not against bible principles using the arguments in this post... He looked genuinely astonished by this information.
At this point I said I had to go but that I had really enjoyed talking to him. We shook hands and I said that I hoped he wasn't offended by anything I had said. I reminded him that he was promoting ideas in a public space and it's only reasonable for a member of the public to challenge those ideas.
I actually think he wanted to talk more. If I could sum up his demeanour as I left it would be crestfallen. He will be thinking about some of that stuff for a long time.
By the way the film (movie) we went to see was "The Man Who Knew Infinity". It's excellent.