The above material brings up the idea of "the design of life" and "the apparent perfection of organisms" and the fact that Richard Lewontin said that "organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed". What did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning? Clearly not.
English can be fuzzy when terms such as "design" and "appear" are used. One can refer to "the design of a snowflake" without any intention that some intelligent entity actually designed it. One can refer to the appearance of something, and imply that that appearance reflects reality or is just a seeming appearance of reality. It can be ambiguous: "John appears to be intelligent".
In his SA article, Richard Lewontin clearly argued that "the design of life" is an illusion that has been well explained by Evolution by natural selection. He also argued that the "apparent perfection" and seeming "artful design" of organisms is merely an illusion. He certainly never intended his audience to think that he himself viewed these things that way.
This brings up an interesting question: Can an atheist be logically consistent in acknowledging that "the apparent perfection of organisms" is the "chief evidence of a Supreme Designer"? Carl Sagan said that the fossil evidence "could be consistent" with that, and I agree. But I will also argue that such evidence is far from conclusive in favor of a Supreme Designer, because it basically amounts to "The Argument From Personal Incredulity".
In other words, I argue that one can accept that certain things are evidence in favor of some claim without in any way accepting, or even admitting, that such a claim is one's own view, or that it is true.
jukief
JoinedPosts by jukief
-
131
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
by jukief inby evolution or by creation?
by evolution or by creation?
"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".
-
-
jukief
-
131
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
by jukief inby evolution or by creation?
by evolution or by creation?
"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".
-
-
jukief
Earnest and cofty, your answers are spot on. Parker most certainly misrepresented Lewontin's views. But in his 2006 book, Parker fairly quoted Lewontin, because the reader was not led to believe something false about his views.
Of course, Parker had already been criticized by Lewontin and others for his 1980 quote-mining.
Parker's original quote-mining led to a series of entertaining quote-mines that involved the Watch Tower Society. Here is Parker's quote-mine again:
<< As Harvard's Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms " … appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He calls the "perfection of organisms" both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>
In 1982 paranormalist author Francis Hitching published a book "The Neck of the Giraffe", in which he criticized the Theory of Evolution partly by misrepresenting scientists' views. In a section "Scientific doubts" he argued that Darwinism is full of dead ends, and that Richard Lewontin supports this claim (pp. 83-84):
<< Nowhere is this more true than in the biological enigma we come to next: what Darwin called 'organs of perfection'. To quote Richard Lewontin of Harvard again, who provided the keynote admission at the beginning of this chapter that almost nothing is known about the genetic changes involved in species formation, many organisms 'appear to have been carefully and artfully designed'. It is, he says, both a challenge to Darwinism and 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer'. >>
It's obvious that paranormalist Francis Hitching quote-mined Lewontin's Scientific American article by way of young-earth creationist Gary Parker.
In 1985 the Watch Tower Society published its book "Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?", which used "The Neck of the Giraffe" as a major source of its argumentation, having directly quoted him thirteen times and indirectly many more times. On page 143 the Creation book quote-mined Lewontin by way of Hitching by way of Parker:
<< Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He views them as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>
The Watch Tower Society received a lot of flak over this bit of quote mining, via letters and emails, complaining about the misquote. My husband AlanF went into Bethel in 1996 and personally confronted the author, Harry Peloyan, about it. Peloyan was Editor-in-chief of Awake! magazine for decades. He denied any misquoting of Lewontin or any misquoting elsewhere in the book.
In 2004 the Society did a bit of revision to tone down the worst of it. Compare the pre-2004 version of Creation above, with the post-2004 version:
<< Evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted that organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed," so that some scientists viewed them as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>
The later version corrected "he views them" to "some scientists viewed them". Of course, the quotation loses all of its punch without the misrepresentation.
Of course, it's easy to see that even the revised version misrepresents Lewontin's article by failing to point out that Lewontin's "admission" was merely a statement of what SOME 19th-century scientists believed, and that Lewontin himself rejects the view that organisms really are designed, but merely SEEM to be designed.
Some JW apologists have argued that this is unfair criticism of the Watch Tower's misrepresentations of Richard Lewontin's article in Scientific American. But here are some statements from Lewontin himself complaining about the selective quoting done by creationists such as Gary Parker of his SA article:
<< Partly through honest confusion, but also partly through a conscious attempt to confuse others, creationists have muddled the disputes about evolutionary theory with the accepted fact of evolution to claim that even scientists call evolution into question. By melding our knowledge of what has happened in evolution with our doubts about how this has happened into a single "theory of evolution," creationists hope to challenge evolution with evolutionists' own words. Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. For example, when, in an article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution. Such deliberate misuse of the literature of evolutionary biology, and the transparent subterfuge of passing off the Old Testament myth of creation as if it were creation "science" rather than the belief of a particular religion, has convinced most evolutionists that creationism is nothing but an ill-willed attempt to suppress truth in the interest of propping up a failing institution. But such a view badly oversimplifies the situation and misses the deep social and political roots of creationism. >> -- Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism, p. xxiv, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983.
Lewontin also complained about the practice of misquoting scientists, in the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, on page 35 (see pages 35-44 for more details):
<< Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists. >>
My husband tells me that, when he was researching the above quote-mining back in 1992, he came to realize the level of incompetence of the entire creationist community, especially of the Watch Tower's Writing Department. -
131
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
by jukief inby evolution or by creation?
by evolution or by creation?
"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".
-
-
jukief
Carl Sagan's remark brings up a related instance. In 1978 evolutionary zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote a Scientific American article "Adaptation" ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwju752x5vHYAhVC-mMKHbJhBG0QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdynamics.org%2F~altenber%2FLIBRARY%2FREPRINTS%2FLewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ZNdeinrKEjSk8hpWf9RcZ ). On the first page he wrote:
<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. . .
The theory about the history of life that is now generally accepted, the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, is meant to explain two different aspects of the appearance of the living world: diversity and fitness. . . By the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 it was widely (if not universally) held that species had evolved from one another, but no plausible mechanism for such evolution had been proposed. Darwin's solution to the problem was that small heritable variations among individuals within a species become the basis of large differences between species. . .
Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life.
It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. . .
These "organs of extreme perfection" were only the most extreme case of a more general phenomenon: adaptation. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was meant to solve both the problem of the origin of diversity and the problem of the origin of adaptation at one stroke. Perfect organs were a difficulty of the theory not in that natural selection could not account for them but rather in that they were its most rigorous test, since on the face of it they seemed the best intuitive demonstration that a divine artificer was at work. >>
A couple of years later the young-earth creationist author Gary Parker wrote an article in a creationist publication where he referenced Lewontin's Scientific American article:
<< As Harvard's Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms ". . . appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He calls the "perfection of organisms" both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>
My question is: Did Parker fairly quote Lewontin, or did he quote-mine Lewontin?
Please explain your answer. -
131
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
by jukief inby evolution or by creation?
by evolution or by creation?
"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".
-
-
jukief
Most people immediately got the point of my post: it's easy to turn the tables on the Watch Tower's practice of misquoting and misrepresenting people.
The best response was from Earnest, whether that was satirical or sincere:
"What a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The quotes are accurate but incomplete and completely out of context, not what the writers were trying to convey. However, it is convincing to those too lazy or disinterested to check the source material."
Then Earnest provided the context for each quote, proving his point that the original post misrepresented the writers' views.
I particularly liked cognisonance's citation from Carl Sagan: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer", cited with the implication that such a view is a startling and significant revelation from a very popular atheist. The problem with such a citation is that by far the majority of god-believers accept that view, which is often called theistic evolution. That way they get to believe in their favorite gods and claim to accept science - the best of both worlds. So citing that view as if it were a startling revelation is merely catering to the grossly ignorant. -
131
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
by jukief inby evolution or by creation?
by evolution or by creation?
"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".
-
-
jukief
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
Some people claim that JWs reject the Theory of Evolution in favor of the Bible's creation account in Genesis.
But is that really true?
Note these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications:
"Scientists have proved evolution to be true." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask (2016) p. 27
"Evolution is a fact." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask Work, Volume 2 (2016) p. 27; W13 10/15 p. 11; “Bearing Thorough Witness” About God’s Kingdom (2009) p. 141; G 9/06 p. 22; W04 10/1 p. 10; g90 1/22 pp. 8-10; g87 7/22 p. 10; Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) pp. 26, 180, 181; G74 9/22 p. 26
"Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun." -- G 9/06 p. 13; Was Life Created? (2010) p. 18
"Evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity." -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) p. 181
"Evolution is a fact; God is a myth." G90 1/22 p.11
"Evolution is a fact. It no longer needs to be proved. No competent scientist doubts it. All educated people believe it. Only the ignorant reject it." G87 1/22 p. 10
"There’s no question that evolution is a fact. We see examples of it every day. No responsible person questions it. It’s as much a fact as gravity and atoms!" -- G74 9/22 p. 17
"The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true". -- W75 7/15 p. 443; W71 1/15 p. 48; G70 4/22 p. 3
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px 'Comic Sans MS'; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px 'Comic Sans MS'; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 18.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
"The theory of evolution is true". -- The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (2010) p. 9
-
85
My letter to Bethel about the flood
by Cornbread ini've decided to go full public with a new username on this forum.
it's been almost a decade since i've been out and i don't care at this point who knows.
that being said, here's a letter that i'm mailing to bethel.
-
-
jukief
Cornbread,
Your plight is similar to what my husband experienced beginning more than 40 years ago. While in college, he tried to write an essay defending the reality of Noah's flood, but when he researched the Society's references in its various publications, he found mostly a series of arguments grossly ignorant of science, and even outright misrepresentations of the references. He eventually did much more research, including on ice cores, coming to the same conclusions you did. You can find the results of his research here: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-general-description-of-flood.html
Don't expect an answer from the Society. They're not into admitting the truth.
Juliann
-
11
Does threatening to sue the individual elders really work?
by alfredjones100 indoes threatening to sue the individual elders for deformation of character really work in preventing being disfellowshiped?.
any actual experiences?.
-
-
jukief
It worked for my husband. They never disfellowshipped him, and they were sure getting ready to.
-
10
Brooklyn Bethel in the 1940 census
by dissonance_resolved inprompted by another post, i looked up 124 columbia heights in the 1940 census.
a few interesting things: all occupants are listed as having the profession of "sell- religious books," except rutherford who is listed as an "editor.
" odd that they aren't listed as ministers.. also, all the educational levels of the occupants were provided- many had not even graduated high school and some not even grammar school.
-
-
jukief
My hubby's dad was at Bethel then. I never would have thought to look at the census. Thanks for mentioning this!
-
16
Ros
by Gorbatchov intoday i read at the xjw.com forum that ros died.. since the start of my internet connexion in 1997 i remember the topics of ros.. ros, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
you helped me getting ttatt.
i pray for you and your relatives.. gorbatchov.
-
-
jukief
She was a lovely person. I'm very, very sad to hear this news.
-
16
Getting rid of HUGE JW library
by jukief inmy husband, alanf, started collecting jw literature about 20 years ago when he began his indepth research into the religion.
his collection includes just about everything the society has ever published, from books and magazines down to booklets, pamphlets, and handbills.
some pieces are quite rare.
-
-
jukief
Alan said a collector recently told him about three extremely rare early JW books that sold on eBay for around $40,000. And it was someone at Bethel who bought them. Crazy, huh?