Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Hockeycowboy]

So maybe you can answer a question your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses have avoided at all costs.....

If you agree that, 1) the earth is ancient (you describe yourself as an old-earth creationist), 2) life has existed on the earth for a very long time, and 3) populations evolve even to the point of generating new species.....then how does a species know at any given point in time to not generate a new species, lest that new species be in a different taxonomic family than its ancient ancestors? IOW, how is any species aware of its taxonomic status relative to its ancient ancestors?

We "have avoided" this? "At all costs"? Why?
"How does a species know"...what? (Only H. sapiens is self-aware.) As I said, changes do occur. But have there been any new evolved phyla since the Cambrian discoveries? No...only man-made changes to scientists' own Linnaean classification system.

Why, because you say so? I got news for ya....things aren't so just because you say they are.

No, of course not. But taken all together, the evidence speaks louder than anyone could.

 

[Jose Fly]

We "have avoided" this? "At all costs"? Why?

Good question.

"How does a species know"...what?

You and Deeje have both claimed that evolution occurs and generates new species, but is limited to changes within taxonomic families. You've also both self-identified as "old-earth creationists". So again....

If species have been giving rise to new species on earth for a very long time, how do they know when to stop, lest the newly-evolved species be a different taxonomic family than their ancestors?

No, of course not. But taken all together, the evidence speaks louder than anyone could.

Yes, and those who are the most familiar with that evidence all generally agree that it supports common descent. How do you explain that? Are they incompetent? Are they conspiring? Are they under a spell?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why? Do you think that these authors wrote something else that contradicted those paragraphs?

I see the "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies" claim an awful lot. I'm yet to see a comprehensive list. Usually it's "well, Israel..." (which, contextually is almost certainly a retroactive prophecy about the restoration after the Babylonian captivity rather than the 1948 refounding) and that's about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see the "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies" claim an awful lot. I'm yet to see a comprehensive list. Usually it's "well, Israel..." (which, contextually is almost certainly a retroactive prophecy about the restoration after the Babylonian captivity rather than the 1948 refounding) and that's about it.

Plus one has to own up to obvious failed prophecies if one wants to be taken seriously. If one does not know of the obvious failed prophecies one cannot claim to be a biblical scholar.

 

[nPeace]

Did I miss something, or did you just ignore my question, seeking to discover what your work is?

No, you didn't miss, you hit it squarely.
As I didn't see it being helpful to the discussion, I assumed it was a rhetorical question.
I am not in the medical profession, or law profession, if that's what you were interested in knowing.

 

[Deeje]

You have no idea what you are talking about. I spent decades in the profession and saw thousands of people whose lives were improved by modern medicine. When I started, fatal heart attacks at age 60 or earlier, and massively swollen ankles from congestive heart failure were commonplace, but by the time of my retirement, rare. When I started practicing medicine, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pain and/or numbness in the limbs and extremities), blindness, and kidney failure were far more common.

Today, I am surrounded by people that have new hips, knees, and intraocular lenses, and who are living full and active lives into their 80's and 90's much more commonly

Your head has been filled with false information, and you dutifully and uncritically serve as a willing vector for its further dissemination. That's irresponsible, even more so that your attacks on evolutionary science, about which you are also misinfomed and disseminating misinformation. But the latter can't hurt anybody, whereas your irresponsible assault on medical science could if you are seen as credible by any reader.

Let me just say this.....improvements in surgical treatments are welcome. I am not disseminating false information by exposing the areas that are purely for making profit. We would expect surgery to become more sophisticated as time goes on and technology improves....surgical medicine is not new, nor is it the issue. It is what medicine has become in the last 7 decades. Please refer to Post #427 and if you have time, please watch the video (posted again below). It explains exactly how we got to this point....not just in medicine but how we got manipulated in every facet of human life...and why our planet is choking on plastic waste.

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

Yeah, I know. I've been an advocate for years. Cannabis is useful in a large variety of medical conditions as well as for palliation in end-of-life-care

At least we can agree on that.

That doesn't fit your conception of the evil, greedy physician trying to keep his patients barely alive to take more of their money before they die, does it?

Oh please.....its not the individual doctors who are the brunt of my argument, because the majority of them are as manipulated and hoodwinked as the rest of the population....right from the start, doctors are taught to be virtual 'pimps' for the drug companies.....its the system that trains them to think a certain way and to act in accord with their specific drug focused instructions, that is at issue. Doctors must be as frustrated as their patients with the lack of progress in curing disease. You can't fix what's broken until you find out what it is. Preventative medicine is the key. So many of the illnesses that people suffer today are diet related. Doctors are losing the battle with obesity for a very good reason.....obesity is a gold mine for the drug companies. Type 2 diabetes is not really diabetes at all...its an exhausted pancreas, shut down by overwork. It is advertising the fact that people eat too much junk. It is entirely preventable and treatable with diet alone....but the drug companies will never tell you that....they have something to sell you that will make you their customer for life. No difficult diets necessary.

Doctors are taught very little about nutrition and would do well to heed the oft quoted.....

"Let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food." - Hippocrates


"It is necessary for a physician to know about nature, and be very eager to know, if he is going to perform any of his duties... what man is in relation to what he eats and drinks, and in relation to his habits generally, and what will be the effect of each upon each individual." - Hippocrates, On where the two worlds meet: a holistic approach to medicine."

Hippocrates Biography: Let Thy Food be Thy Medicine

This comment demonstrates how unqualified you are to comment about medicine.

Anyone who has family members with serious illness, particularly chronic, genetically inherited diseases, make it their business to know what affects their loved ones and others. To understand what they are suffering and how to help them. They are often more up to date with research on medical treatments and advancements than most doctors....in fact it has been my own experience to have doctors defer to my knowledge, since my husband suffered a rare condition and the average doctor who is not a neurologist would not be knowledgeable about the specifics or treatment without consulting a textbook. Patients are very often NOT textbook cases, so having experienced those sorts of doctors, (ones who make major decisions by consulting a book instead of being able to rely on personal experience) does not inspire confidence....nor does it lead to successful outcomes in managing the illness.

 

[Deeje]

You commented that medications only treat symptoms. I told you that you were wrong, and commented that you must not know what a symptom is. You're still wrong.

"symptom
/ˈsɪm(p)təm/
noun
noun: symptom; plural noun: symptoms
a physical or mental feature which is regarded as indicating a condition of disease, particularly such a feature that is apparent to the patient."

What am I missing?

If I have a symptom like gastric reflux...what will a doctor prescribe? Antacids right? What is causing the reflux? To doctors it doesn't matter because they have a pill to take away the symptoms. Most people with gastric reflux suffer from it for years, but it is usually a symptom that your gut is not functioning properly and it may be triggered by certain foods or drinks.

In my own case I went to the doctor (years ago) and was prescribed Nexium. But it meant staying on this tablet for the rest of whatever. I hate taking pills, so I was prompted to go to a natural therapist who ran through what was in my diet. By a process of elimination we finally discovered that my morning coffee was the culprit. I drank it first thing on an empty stomach, when I got up and took it back to bed. Coffee on an empty stomach can trigger reflux at night. I drank tea with honey instead and I haven't had reflux since.

Now multiply that by all the ailments and illnesses affecting people as they age and you can see at the pharmacy all the oldies lining up at the cash register with multiple packets of drugs. What if most of those drugs could be replaced by a change in diet, some vitamin supplements because commercially produced food is low in nutrients....and some proper age related exercise?
The drug companies would see a decided downturn in their profits. Can't have that!

I have no interest in defending a compassion, reason and evidence based ideology to a faith based thinker who gets her morals from a book, and her education from the Watchtower.

What are you and your denomination doing for the world besides despising and maligning it?

We are going out to people who feel hopeless because of what humans are doing in the world and giving them something to look forward to. This brings enormous relief and gives them hope that the one who created the world will soon fix it. That to us is a compassionate, reason and evidence based ideology. Yours offers no solutions at all. "Eat drink and be merry" is about all you have because the powers that are destroying the world are bigger than the power of man to save it. We can all see it....do you deny it?

Who's pretending that unhappy and unfortunate people don't exist? Not I. I'm telling you that it is possible to lead a satisfying life - that my life has been good, as are the lives of untold millions if not billions of people - more than ever in the history of humanity, thanks to the advances brought to us by academia and rational skepticism. You seem to resent that.

"Advances brought to us by academia and rational skepticism"?.......hmmmm....what advances are we talking about? Tell us what advances have led to a world where no child goes to bed hungry or is exposed to sexual exploitation and abuse? Tell us how academia and rational skepticism produced weapons of mass destruction so that one bomb would do what weeks or months of hand to hand combat might achieve. Why are we fighting and killing people over bits of dirt? Isn't it always about what's under the dirt?

Are you losing your memory IANS? We are all losing our memory...but do you know why? The radiation that we are all exposed to day after day from our mobile phones and wireless computers.....it is turning our brains to mush. Can we escape it as more and more of the world scrambles for better coverage and faster internet? Do you know what 5G will accomplish? Its apparently coming to Australia soon. More dead brain cells. The younger you are the more damage the radiation does.....parents are giving their babies iPads. Children in primary schools have computers in their classrooms exposed to that radiation all day long, then they go home for further exposure. Who is ringing the alarm bells? Most people don't know that there are alarm bells ringing.

Ideally, whilst ever there is a child, orphaned, homeless, starving, stuck in poverty with no way out.....none of us should be happy. Why should their geographical location dictate their future? Why are the wealthy nations of the world looking after no.1 and neglecting to be the humanitarians we all should be? Even when they do give funds to poorer nations, they are siphoned off for the military. Just funding more killing but not really saving anyone.
Jesus gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan for a reason. We can help those around us when we see a need. Imagine if everyone did that.....?

It is you pretending that there are no happy people, or that those who claim to be must be selfish and living in a bubble.

If you can be happy amid all the injustice and wanton wickedness, then you must live in a bubble.
Compassion is feeling empathy for those who are suffering. All I see from you is "I'm happy so what does it matter what others are suffering......all is OK in my world"

Sorry, but I have a realistic connection to my world, one derived from experiencing and contemplating it.

Funny...so do I. Sell those blinkers you are wearing......you'll make a fortune!

Your understanding of the world comes from your church, an understanding that is unrecognizable to me. It's hard to believe that we are living in the same world.

My understanding of the world comes from seeing it with my eyes wide open...you should try it sometime.

But I agree.....its pointless trying to live together amicably as polar opposites....so I believe that a separation is inevitable in the future. The powers that be have been planning it for ages.......but so has God.The Bible says that humans will start it...but God will finish it. I have good reason to believe that what the Bible says is true.

How can you be happy when all you can see is failure and corruption? All you have to offset that is unjustified hope for happiness some day in an imagined paradisiacal afterlife. But not today. Today, you are just biding your time, awaiting the end of life in the hope of something better.

I have it on good authority (the highest in the Universe actually) that this is not the life he planned for us at the outset. In our hearts we know that's true. Why do you think humans have a collective desire to live in paradise.....even for a vacation? Look at all the paradise settings around the world and what will you find? High rise condos and resorts.....people exploiting that need for money.....we're so predictable aren't we?

If only berating mankind, science, medicine, and the world were of any use.

Telling the truth and exposing error and manipulation is what you guys think you are doing with us......but you seem to have no idea how horribly exploited you are yourselves. Who is ruling this world and what is their agenda.....you had better find out who is pulling the strings.

 

[oldbadger]

Never said that.


Um.....dishonestly editing quotes is the definition of "quote mining".

How would you define the HONEST edition of quotes?

 

[oldbadger]

S
Not sure what your point is. Are you operating under the assumption that we can't say we share an ancestry with other primates until we know which specific species was the last common ancestor?

No. I am operating under the clear impression that 'We have still not found the missing link between us and apes'. That is the title of that BBC report.

Which leads me to the quite wonderful discovery that you must have some degree of faith........ you have FAITH that we are evolved.

I wonder if @Hockeycowboy and @Deeje have clicked upon that?

 

[oldbadger]

You're dodging. Again, are you operating under the assumption that we can't say humans are related to other primates until we identify the species that was the last common ancestor between the two groups?

No dodges there........ Science likes to be sure., whereas you seem to be content with Faith about this.

 

[oldbadger]

....... Underlying all that is an admission that us science folks are the smart ones, and those on the other side aren't. ..................

You science folks?
Are you a science folk?

I'm surprised if you are.

 

[nPeace]

What makes you think that we do now how it happened? All that is being worked out right now are details.

Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

1. Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
   
2. Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
   
3. How does evolution produce new and complex features?
   
4. Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

Darwin - "On Origin of Species"
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Along came a better knowledge and understanding of the cell - with its DNA, and its code of instructions.
The theory of Evolution galloped on.

Along with the fact that the fossil record was not supporting the theory, the Cambrian exploded,
BOOM!
Over 60,000 fossils in the Cambrian Explosion.
95% - 20 phyla of the 27 fossilized of the 36 in the history of life.

...and the search began for a solution - evidence to make the theory fit the facts. The events of the Cambrian explosion are subject of ongoing debate and research.

Fix...
1. The cry that the fossil record is incomplete.
2. Artifact Hypothesis
3. Punctuated equilibrium.

Now that I mentioned punctuated equilibrium, I think it's fitting to mention the "brilliant" mind behind the idea - Stephen Jay Gould
...see Conflicts of Minds

4. Now...
Evolution’s Clock Ticked Faster at the Dawn of Modern Animals
This so-called Cambrian explosion kept Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, awake at night, as he worried that his theory of natural selection couldn’t explain the sudden proliferation of species. Now, researchers have combined evidence from the fossil record with clues in the genes of living species to estimate the speed of that evolutionary explosion. Their finding - that the rate of change was high, but still plausible - may put Darwin’s fears to rest.

They found that when some early branches of the arthropod family tree were splitting off, creatures were evolving new traits about four times faster than they did in the following 500 million years. The creatures' genetic codes were changing by about .117% every million years - approximately 5.5 times faster than modern estimates, the group reports online today in Current Biology. Lee calls this pace “fast, but not too fast” to reconcile with Darwin’s theory.

This combined model for genes and anatomy represents “quite a stride forward,” Wills says. The results not only show that the evolutionary clock ticked much faster around the time of the Cambrian, but also hint at what may have sped it up. The fact that genes and anatomy evolved at roughly the same rate suggest that pressures to adapt and survive in a world of new, complex predators drove both, the authors speculate. Innovations such as exoskeletons, vision, and jaws created new niches and evolution sped up to fill them. Wills agrees that the new research makes this explanation for the Cambrian explosion “look a lot more probable now.”

Others caution that such analysis is in its infancy. “It’s an excellent first step,” says Douglas Erwin, a paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., but the exact rates of evolution in the study might not be reliable. He points out that while the study uses fossil data to determine when a given arthropod branch emerged, it doesn’t include the known characteristics of these extinct ancestors in its comparisons of physical traits, which involve only living creatures.

Some of the assumptions the authors make in estimating these emergence dates are also problematic, says Philip Donoghue, a paleobiologist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom. But he believes future iterations of this approach - incorporating fossil traits into the analysis - will yield a powerful new tool: “All the cool kids will be doing it soon.”

Major fossil study sheds new light on emergence of early animal life 540 million years ago
...new research from the University of Oxford in collaboration with the University of Lausanne suggests that for most animals this 'explosion' was in fact a more gradual process.

The new analysis presents a challenge to the two major competing hypotheses about early animal evolution. The first of these suggests a slow, gradual evolution of euarthropods starting 650-600 million years ago, which had been consistent with earlier molecular dating estimates of their origin. The other hypothesis claims the nearly instantaneous appearance of euarthropods 540 million years ago because of highly elevated rates of evolution.

The new research suggests a middle-ground between these two hypotheses...

...and the theory gallops on, as the algorithms are built up as evidence to support the undeniable facts that evolution fails to account for the diversity of living things.
Yet there is no evidence for intelligent design.
Just modern day myths.

Spoiler: Ambulocetus

animation

or movie

The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity
...recently some scientists and philosophers have suggested that complexity can arise through other routes. Some argue that life has a built-in tendency to become more complex over time. Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection - the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.

Darwin's Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush
Researchers at Vanderbilt University are tied up in knots trying to locate Darwin’s branching tree in contradictory data.
...... Read the article as well as the source - Untangling the Tree of Life
Evolutionists have been concocting Darwin trees in spite of the evidence ever since Darwin acknowledged the Cambrian explosion as a real problem that lodged a valid objection to his theory ...

Darwinism is a classic case of Finagle’s Rule #3, “Draw your curves, then plot your data.” Guru Charlie drew his little tree sketch by faith, then sent his disciples out on a hopeless quest to find evidence to support it.
Now, ... these guys are still telling us the tree vision is in conflict with the data!
They have to finagle their methods (“novel approaches”) to try to force a match with the uncooperative genes.

...they are even willing to lie, tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told *the above* in biology class? Did your textbook mention *the above*? No; but you hear it here on CEH all the time, because we bring out into the open the dirty deals
evolutionists whisper to themselves in the journals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I am operating under the clear impression that 'We have still not found the missing link between us and apes'. That is the title of that BBC report.

Which leads me to the quite wonderful discovery that you must have some degree of faith........ you have FAITH that we are evolved.

I wonder if @Hockeycowboy and @Deeje have clicked upon that?

The problem is that you have poorly formed assumption in this post. The reason that you will never find this "missing link" is because we are still apes. You are still an ape, your children are all apes.

Tell me, do you consider Lucy to be an ape?

 

[nPeace]

NOMA
Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read authors of popular science of his generation.
......
Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium...
......
The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record.
......
He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "non-overlapping magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap.
......
Raised in a secular Jewish home, Gould did not formally practice religion and preferred to be called an agnostic. When asked directly if he was an agnostic in Skeptic magazine, he responded:
If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.
......
The "Darwin Wars"
Gould received many accolades for his scholarly work and popular expositions of natural history, but a number of biologists felt his public presentations were out of step with mainstream evolutionary thinking. The public debates between Gould's supporters and detractors have been so quarrelsome that they have been dubbed "The Darwin Wars" by several commentators.
......
One reason for criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, and argued for the importance of mechanisms other than natural selection, mechanisms which he believed had been ignored by many professional evolutionists.
......
The conflicts between Richard Dawkins and Gould were popularized by philosopher Kim Sterelny in his 2001 book Dawkins vs. Gould. Sterelny documents their disagreements over theoretical issues, including the prominence of gene selection in evolution. Dawkins argues that natural selection is best understood as competition among genes (or replicators), while Gould advocated multi-level selection, which includes selection amongst genes, nucleic acid sequences, cell lineages, organisms, demes, species, and clades.
Dawkins accused Gould of deliberately underplaying the differences between rapid gradualism and macromutation in his published accounts of punctuated equilibrium. He also devoted entire chapters to critiquing Gould's account of evolution in his books The Blind Watchmaker and Unweaving the Rainbow, as did Daniel Dennett in his 1995 book Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
.......
Non-overlapping magisteria
In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion." He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution." The non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover "the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry." He suggests that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that NOMA is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."

This view has not been without criticism, however. For example, in his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that the division between religion and science is not so simple as Gould claims, as few religions exist without claiming the existence of miracles, which "by definition, violate the principles of science." Dawkins also opposes the idea that religion has anything meaningful to say about ethics and values, and therefore has no authority to claim a magisterium of its own. He goes on to say that he believes Gould is disingenuous in much of what he says in Rocks of Ages. Similarly, humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that Gould was wrong to posit that science has nothing to say about questions of ethics. In fact, Kurtz claims that science is a much better method than religion for determining moral principles.

Gould's separate magisteria
In a 1997 essay "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" for Natural History magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to . . . the supposed conflict between science and religion.", from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani generis (1950), and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution", and describes the NOMA principle as "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values - subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve." "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

.... In the chapter "NOMA Defined and Defended" Gould gave examples of the types of questions appropriate to each area of inquiry, on the topic of "our relationship with other living creatures":.....Do we violate any moral codes when we use genetic technology to place a gene from one creature into the genome of another species?" represent questions in the domain of values. He went on to present "an outline of historical reasons for the existence of conflict, where none should exist;"

In a speech before the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Gould stressed the diplomatic reasons for adopting NOMA as well, stating that "the reason why we support that position is that it happens to be right, logically. But we should also be aware that it is very practical as well if we want to prevail." Gould argued that if indeed the polling data was correct - and that 80 to 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and such a belief is misunderstood to be at odds with evolution - then "we have to keep stressing that religion is a different matter, and science is not in any sense opposed to it," otherwise "we're not going to get very far." He did not, however, consider this diplomatic aspect to be paramount, writing in 1997: "NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance."

Creation and Evolution Quotes
Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, in “Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution” by Jonathan Sarfati, Published: 24 September 2008(GMT+10), available at Evolutionist: it's OK to deceive students to believe evolution - creation.com:
‘it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’ (Zivkovic, Bora (aka “Coturnix”), Why teaching evolution is dangerous, <scienceblogs.com> 25 August 2008).

‘You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. (emphasis added)’
......
Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in the case of Campbell’s school, and many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture.’
cont'...

 

[nPeace]

Tactics and Deceit
...some evolutionists – knowing full-well that NOMA is wrong – are nonetheless comfortable using it for tactical reasons. They would use NOMA to gain the trust of their students, before disabusing them of their religious convictions.

Here is another example of this curious phenomenon of defending positions merely as tactics, without really believing them.
Francisco J. Ayala is a former Roman Catholic priest and a leading biologist who disavows any challenge to religion from Darwinism. Ayala is a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and was the founding chair of the AAAS Dialogues on Science, Ethics, and Religion. He is an outspoken defender of the compatibility between religion and biological evolution. He is also a recipient of the Templeton Prize. Since 1999, Ayala has argued that evolution is fully consistent with belief in a personal God. Ayala’s 2007 book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion likewise declares that “Christians need not see evolution as a threat to their beliefs.”

But is Ayala even a believer anymore? In 2006, Ayala spoke at the “Beyond Belief” atheism conference (note the title of the conference). Ayala, speaking to a largely atheist audience, said that “I know how Richard [Dawkins] feels on matters of religion. I could agree with you on many things which I will not make explicit here.”

In 2007, Ayala was called as an expert witness in a lawsuit over the use of certain textbooks in private schools. He affirmed that it is “fairly accurate” to say he “spent five years in the priesthood until he said his intellectual side could no longer rationalize evil and human tragedy under the auspices of a supposedly loving God. As a result he not only left the priesthood, he left the Roman Catholic Church never to return.” When questioned further, Ayala refused to answer specific questions about his personal religious views. In a 2008 New York Times interview we learn that Ayala “will not say whether he remains a religious believer.”
Is it not curious that an atheist should argue for the compatibility of evolution with religious belief? Is this being done out of conviction, or is it just part of a stealth strategy?

Where evolution is concerned JWs know where they stand. There is only one position - it is on the side of truth, not lies, and there is no middle ground.
As the situation with Francisco J. Ayala shows, there are some - even here on these forums, in that position - just tethering on a thin line.
It reminds me of the account at 1 Kings 18:17-40.
It doesn't matter that some are limping on two opinions. It's only a matter of time before their true skin is exposed.
Evolution will continue to look good to those whom it appeals to. They will draw to it like flies to dung.

The situation is as it was in the time of the young man Jehu, who acted perhaps with the wisdom from Jehovah - the true God. 2 Kings 10:18-28
This illustrates what God is doing.
The evolution theory will stand on its props for as long as God allows it.
When it collapses, it will pulverize, both its props, and its supporters.

It is similar to how the Philistines met their end when Samson moved just two of the supports. Judges 16:23-30 I am one JW that look forward to its collapse, along with this system of things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

1. Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
   
2. Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
   
3. How does evolution produce new and complex features?
   
4. Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

So? There are always unanswered problems in the sciences. This does not support @Hockeycowboy 's post. And you do realize that most of those have been answered, don't you?

Darwin - "On Origin of Species"
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Yes, during Darwin's time the fossil record was very sparse. But then that was to be expected. Serious collecting had barely begun. Even in Darwin's lifetime one a major transitional form was found that confirmed his theory.

Along came a better knowledge and understanding of the cell - with its DNA, and its code of instructions.
The theory of Evolution galloped on.

Or course it did since DNA proved the theory of evolution far beyond a reasonable doubt. Only the incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant can deny the theory now.

Along with the fact that the fossil record was not supporting the theory, the Cambrian exploded,
BOOM!
Over 60,000 fossils in the Cambrian Explosion.
95% - 20 phyla of the 27 fossilized of the 36 in the history of life.

...and the search began for a solution - evidence to make the theory fit the facts. The events of the Cambrian explosion are subject of ongoing debate and research.[/quoite]

What!? Are you openly lying? That is what it looks like now.

Fix...
1. The cry that the fossil record is incomplete.

Oh my, you are dishonest. Such a shame. The fossil record will always be "incomplete" but it is far more than complete enough to more than "prove" the theory of evolution.

Enough of this dishonest Gish Gallop. You do realize that that is what this is, don't you? All it would take to refute this argument is one fossil. Are you sure that you want to debate this way?

Instead of wasting your time with dishonesty why not try to learn instead?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tactics and Deceit
...some evolutionists – knowing full-well that NOMA is wrong – are nonetheless comfortable using it for tactical reasons. They would use NOMA to gain the trust of their students, before disabusing them of their religious convictions.

Here is another example of this curious phenomenon of defending positions merely as tactics, without really believing them.
Francisco J. Ayala is a former Roman Catholic priest and a leading biologist who disavows any challenge to religion from Darwinism. Ayala is a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and was the founding chair of the AAAS Dialogues on Science, Ethics, and Religion. He is an outspoken defender of the compatibility between religion and biological evolution. He is also a recipient of the Templeton Prize. Since 1999, Ayala has argued that evolution is fully consistent with belief in a personal God. Ayala’s 2007 book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion likewise declares that “Christians need not see evolution as a threat to their beliefs.”

But is Ayala even a believer anymore? In 2006, Ayala spoke at the “Beyond Belief” atheism conference (note the title of the conference). Ayala, speaking to a largely atheist audience, said that “I know how Richard [Dawkins] feels on matters of religion. I could agree with you on many things which I will not make explicit here.”

In 2007, Ayala was called as an expert witness in a lawsuit over the use of certain textbooks in private schools. He affirmed that it is “fairly accurate” to say he “spent five years in the priesthood until he said his intellectual side could no longer rationalize evil and human tragedy under the auspices of a supposedly loving God. As a result he not only left the priesthood, he left the Roman Catholic Church never to return.” When questioned further, Ayala refused to answer specific questions about his personal religious views. In a 2008 New York Times interview we learn that Ayala “will not say whether he remains a religious believer.”
Is it not curious that an atheist should argue for the compatibility of evolution with religious belief? Is this being done out of conviction, or is it just part of a stealth strategy?

Where evolution is concerned JWs know where they stand. There is only one position - it is on the side of truth, not lies, and there is no middle ground.
As the situation with Francisco J. Ayala shows, there are some - even here on these forums, in that position - just tethering on a thin line.
It reminds me of the account at 1 Kings 18:17-40.
It doesn't matter that some are limping on two opinions. It's only a matter of time before their true skin is exposed.
Evolution will continue to look good to those whom it appeals to. They will draw to it like flies to dung.

The situation is as it was in the time of the young man Jehu, who acted perhaps with the wisdom from Jehovah - the true God. 2 Kings 10:18-28
This illustrates what God is doing.
The evolution theory will stand on its props for as long as God allows it.
When it collapses, it will pulverize, both its props, and its supporters.

It is similar to how the Philistines met their end when Samson moved just two of the supports. Judges 16:23-30 I am one JW that look forward to its collapse, along with this system of things.

Wow! Endless dishonesty.

Once again, can you be honest? This is not a proper way to debate.

 

[John53]

TThe evolution theory will stand on its props for as long as God allows it.

So your God is perpetuating a lie...

When it collapses, it will pulverize, both its props, and its supporters.

So people believing the lie he is perpetuating can be hurt.... (nasty sod isn't he!)

It is similar to how the Philistines met their end when Samson moved just two of the supports. Judges 16:23-30 I am one JW that look forward to its collapse, along with this system of things.

So you can see people being punished for believing the lies of your God?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Who knows? @Hockeycowboy is once again doing his usual routine where he comes into a thread, says a few things, dodges follow-ups, and eventually just leaves.

That he's so predictable in that way says a lot.

I don’t live on here....I’ve got other responsibilities. I try to answer reasonable responses. That MO sometimes excludes you and a few others.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So your God is perpetuating a lie...

(Oh brother, lol!)

No, but Jehovah allows others to do so, for now. That’s on them.