Putting the JW Stand on Evolution into Perspective

[Monk Of Reason]

You will have to be more specific in what you are claiming for me to respond. In what ways do persons "get evolution so wrong"? What is the "deep and fundamental flaw" you claim exists?

Pretty much any and every argument against evolution is usually rooted in deeply flawed understanding of evolution. A good one is that "there are no transitional forms" when literally every fossil, every organism is a transitional form. You are a transitional form. I am a transitional form. There is also this misunderstanding of people saying "well I've never seen a dog birth a cat so therefore evolution is wrong." If a dog could give birth to a cat and this be just normal then that would in most ways disprove evolution. IT follows a common pattern of presenting an argument that evolution does not make, then defeating that argument or proving it false and then feeling in some way that it is an argument against evolution.
Have you had an argument against evolution that you have not heard someone explain to you in detail as to why?

 

[Parsimony]

I want to see an argument against evolution that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy (i.e. straw-men, arguments from ignorance, quote-mining, argument from authority, etc.).

 

[rusra02]

Pretty much any and every argument against evolution is usually rooted in deeply flawed understanding of evolution. A good one is that "there are no transitional forms" when literally every fossil, every organism is a transitional form. You are a transitional form. I am a transitional form. There is also this misunderstanding of people saying "well I've never seen a dog birth a cat so therefore evolution is wrong." If a dog could give birth to a cat and this be just normal then that would in most ways disprove evolution. IT follows a common pattern of presenting an argument that evolution does not make, then defeating that argument or proving it false and then feeling in some way that it is an argument against evolution.
Have you had an argument against evolution that you have not heard someone explain to you in detail as to why?

The statement that every organism is a transitional form is simply an assertion, IMO. I have never seen that claim directly stated before. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

 

[averageJOE]

I want to see an argument against evolution that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy (i.e. straw-men, arguments from ignorance, quote-mining, argument from authority, etc.).

It's not even an argument against evolution I'm interested in, but an argument for creation or intelligent design without trying to argue against evolution, and bringing up god or the bible.

 

[gnostic]

It's not even an argument against evolution I'm interested in, but an argument for creation or intelligent design without trying to argue against evolution, and bringing up god or the bible.

I can argue against creationism without using evolution, because evolution is not needed, and because evolution is science, or more specifically biology, it's not a religion. Evolution and its theory is not a religion.

But the creationism, is deeply rooted in Christian belief in the bible, specifically Genesis 1 & 2. So I can't argue against creationism without the bible, because the fundamental of creationism lie within Genesis itself, which is part of the bible. So it would be ridiculous to argue against creationism without the bible...but it is possible to argue against it without brining up evolution.

 

[gnostic]

I can argue against creationism without using evolution, because evolution is not needed, and because evolution is science, or more specifically biology, it's not a religion. Evolution and its theory is not a religion.

But the creationism, is deeply rooted in Christian belief in the bible, specifically Genesis 1 & 2. So I can't argue against creationism without the bible, because the fundamental of creationism lie within Genesis itself, which is part of the bible. So it would be ridiculous to argue against creationism without the bible...but it is possible to argue against it without brining up evolution.

Plus, because God supposedly was involved in creation, according to Genesis, I don't see how I can't bring up God in the debate against creationism, since god is part of the book.

 

[averageJOE]

Children should not be forced to believe in one or the other....they should be given both options and given a choice to believe whichever conforms to their own individual sensibilities. What awful thing happens if they choose creation?

We teach our own children and allow them to make up their own minds.

Except that you're leaving out the part about what happens to the children, and other people, of the JW's who do end up trusting evolution and anything else that goes against their teachings. They are shamed, guilt is used on them as a weapon, and disfellowshipment.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The statement that every organism is a transitional form is simply an assertion, IMO. I have never seen that claim directly stated before.

Then you haven't been listening. There are no "transitional forms" that are different than "non-transitional forms". This is the first indicator that you don't know or at least the arguments that you have been pushing doesn't address the key points of evolution. And it isn't up for debate. Even if evolution were false our current understanding of organisms would still pit them as transitional forms. Do you know what an organism is? What it is made of?

After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

Indeed. A religiously based individual who wishes to have some kind of god based worldview without any scientific evidence to back it up often goes into denial. Especially after surrounding oneself with organizations that make insane amounts of money off of under-educated christian fundamentalist families by pushing their "theories" that aren't even considered science.

But do you find it strange that for every one person that states they have doubts in evolution there are 99 others who provide ironclad evidence that it does? Popularity does not make a theory true. If the evidence holds true then it doesn't matter if one person is against 1 million other opinions it doesn't make it right.

However the evidence is startlingly in favor of evolution. To the point that it is not even conceivable to rationally deny it. I try not to fall back on that but you have one individual that in a single google search tied him to multiple organizations whose sole purpose is to disprove evolution and you take his opinion that he made thousands of dollars having in his book over the whole of the entire scientific community which is actually backed by evidence? You admit you are biased at least correct?

 

[gnostic]

Except that you're leaving out the part about what happens to the children, and other people, of the JW's who do end up trusting evolution and anything else that goes against their teachings. They are shamed, guilt is used on them as a weapon, and disfellowshipment.

Which is absolutely horrendous and immoral.