There is a huge silence on the Origin question, but an equally huge literature on the Evolution question.The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with.
CORRECT: That is what it is all about.
It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things.
Old Hippie: The Society perpetuates the strawman argument that evolution proceeds by "undirected accidents" or "blind chance." While chance plays a part in virtually everything, to ascribe evolution as resting upon that solely is simply false. Natural selection has been proven to be a dramatic, effective and, in some cases, astonishingly fast-acting design force, both in the lab and in nature. In fact, that was the whole point of Peter and Rosemary Grant's research on Darwin's finches--not to prove that somehow over the course of a few decades they'd turn into hippos but that environmental forces could produce--design, in fact--measurable changes in morphology. The theory of evolution rests on many things but "fortunate accidents" is not one of them.
I'd like to point out, as well, the use of the word "notion," which the Origin brochure uses repeatedly as a way of trivializing the hard science upon which modern biology rests, as if scientists spend their time following silly little sentiments unconnected with any real proof.
Burn the Ships: I like your idea and it might work, however, the current state of evolutionary science is complex and resistant to easy dumbing-down. That's one of the difficulties with really explaining some of the absurdities in the brochure well; the WT writers have exploited shifts in understanding (like the punctuated equilibrium controversy from the 1970's which has long been settled, and the more recent squabbling over cladistics) in order to harvest their quotes but understanding the errors means understanding the underlying issues, which often requires at least a fundamental knowledge of evolution and the history of the science. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, and I'd be willing to help, but it will be a challenge to say the least. I'm hoping the analysis I'm working on now will accomplish something similar but I'm finding that my analysis is longer than the article ("Has All Life Descended from a Common Ancestor?" p. 22)