Putting the JW Stand on Evolution into Perspective

[rusra02]

I really have no interest in discussing evolution. Reason i posted here was to give my opinion on the percentage of JW's that believe in it. I was under the impression that none of them believe in it and not 8% as the study indicated. There are many threads on this forum dealing with evolution...

A person may be studying the Bible with Jws but still retain their own beliefs about evolution. Yet they identify themselves as Jws. Also, there may be some who no longer associate with Jws but still claim that affiliation. Having said that, I too think 8% is high. What is the margin of error in the survey?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

​

Hurrah, Buddhists win again!

 

[rusra02]

The crazy thing is that the only scientists that actually actively oppose evolution are from these organizations that are built specifically with the objective in mind to discredit evolution. You can't blame a near universal acceptance of evolution on bullying. The fact of the matter is that evolution evidence is undeniable. Do you think that people are bullied into accepting that the earth is round and that we orbit the sun and the moon is made of rock?

That statement that "only scientists that actually actively oppose evolution are from these organizations that are built specifically with the objective in mind to discredit evolution" is hard to fathom. What is "actively opposing evolution" entail? And is it your claim that only scientists belonging to organizations like discovery.org, (who oppose evolution on scientific grounds), reject the ToE? Bullying is only part of the ceaseless propaganda campaign waged by some supporters of the ToE.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That statement that "only scientists that actually actively oppose evolution are from these organizations that are built specifically with the objective in mind to discredit evolution" is hard to fathom. What is "actively opposing evolution" entail? And is it your claim that only scientists belonging to organizations like discovery.org, (who oppose evolution on scientific grounds), reject the ToE? Bullying is only part of the ceaseless propaganda campaign waged by some supporters of the ToE.

The reason I say that is because there was a book published a few years back that had a huge list of all people that they could find that didn't accept evolution. There have been a few people have gone through them on different occasions and found that the majority were not scientists, were from creationist think tanks or had had their names used against their permission for the book and did accept evolution. After all was said and done they found 2 people to confirm that they were qualified with degree's to say anything out of hundreds and both were hired and worked for creationist think tank groups. When I get home I can link you to the video.

But the reason it is so hard to fathom is because you have been fed lies about evolution from tainted sources that have a specific goal of destroying the theory through misinformation rather than objectively attempting to understand the theory.

 

[SkylarHunter]

In the spirit of putting things in perspective could you please name just a couple of the many many book you have surely read on the topic during your long and intensive study?

Thanking you kindly in advance.

I can't name all of them without going through a few boxes, but most recently "The greatest show on earth", "God is not great : how religion poisons everything" , "A brief history of time".
I also read some of the others who are against evolution but I'm sure you don't want to know about those.
But independently of anything I ever read, anything anyone as ever told me, whatever religion might have influenced me with (and I must say I'm not the biggest fan of organized religion), my bottom line is: I look at everything that surrounds me, I take advantage of the incredibly developed technology of have access to today to learn everything I can about the universe, nature and how everything works, and the more I know the more I see purpose, intelligence, creativity... I cannot believe even for one second that all those things that cause me so much wonder just happened due to a succession of happy coincidences, of things randomly happening in such a favorable, yet unplanned way, that in the end it all resulted in the universe we have today.

 

[rusra02]

The reason I say that is because there was a book published a few years back that had a huge list of all people that they could find that didn't accept evolution. There have been a few people have gone through them on different occasions and found that the majority were not scientists, were from creationist think tanks or had had their names used against their permission for the book and did accept evolution. After all was said and done they found 2 people to confirm that they were qualified with degree's to say anything out of hundreds and both were hired and worked for creationist think tank groups. When I get home I can link you to the video.

But the reason it is so hard to fathom is because you have been fed lies about evolution from tainted sources that have a specific goal of destroying the theory through misinformation rather than objectively attempting to understand the theory.

I think you have been fed lies. I listed scientists in this forum that reject evolution. And the fact that a scientist believes in intelligent design or in creation versus evolution seems to label them in the evolution camp as working for "creationist think tanks." Propagandists have been known to play fast and loose with the truth and the truth is a significant number of scientists do not accept the ToE as factual.

 

[Curious George]

... I cannot believe even for one second that all those things that cause me so much wonder just happened due to a succession of happy coincidences, of things randomly happening in such a favorable, yet unplanned way, that in the end it all resulted in the universe we have today.

This is the argument that I hear on these boards and in life with people who try to disagree with evolution.

This translates into I cannot accept evolution because I want to believe I'm special, molded with purpose, and part of a grand design.

 

[rusra02]

This is the argument that I hear on these boards and in life with people who try to disagree with evolution.

This translates into I cannot accept evolution because I want to believe I'm special, molded with purpose, and part of a grand design.

I cannot disagree more. The wonderful animals and plants, from the largest to the smallest, shout design, superior intelligence, and wisdom were needed to create us. The argument is simple. Just as every house requires an intelligent designer, so do all other things. The evidence for an intelligent Creator is all around us, and the ToE cannot refute it successfully, IMO.

 

[Curious George]

Thinking people would disagree that the ToE and how life began are unrelated. That is the ToE response to an embarrassing question. "Uh, it doesn't matter...let's move on"

I think that we can connect the dots. Certainly not completely but given random chance, enough time, and the right conditions...recently we have discovered that the earth was covered in water sooner in our history than we previously thought. Like a couple billion years sooner. Crunch the numbers eventually a random event becomes likely and almost guaranteed. Especially since we can prove the building blocks were all there.

But that is not what people mean when they say abiogenesis is not evolution. What they are saying is-- even if we skip that-- evolution is still occurring. That we have common ancestry does not hinge on whether lipid spheres even formed. In fact you can start with a creator and evolution is still true. You can even say god created man and evolution is still true. Evolution has been supported by so many other fields that no matter what happens it cannot be dismantled...it is literally fact. Sure there are questions and kinks to work out, but it stands no matter what.

 

[Curious George]

I cannot disagree more. The wonderful animals and plants, from the largest to the smallest, shout design, superior intelligence, and wisdom were needed to create us. The argument is simple. Just as every house requires an intelligent designer, so do all other things. The evidence for an intelligent Creator is all around us, and the ToE cannot refute it successfully, IMO.

Simple you want to see a house and therefore assume there is a designer.

 

[fantome profane]

I can't name all of them without going through a few boxes, but most recently "The greatest show on earth", "God is not great : how religion poisons everything" , "A brief history of time".
I also read some of the others who are against evolution but I'm sure you don't want to know about those.

"The Greatest Show on Earth" is an excellent book. I am glad to hear you read that, what did you think of it?


But the fact that you even mentioned the other two just shows the problem. I asked what you had read concerning evolution. And you mention two books that have nothing to do with evolution, one is an anti-religious book, and the other is about cosmology. Evolution is not atheism. Sorry, but that needs to be emphasized. Evolution is not atheism!

And it is not cosmology either.

 

[Skwim]

Thinking people would disagree that the ToE and how life began are unrelated.

Everything is related, but thinking people recognize the difference between origins and change. By making comments like this you do realize, don't you, that you're excluding yourself from the class of thinking people. Here, perhaps this will help you.

origin
[awr-i-jin, or-]

noun

1. something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead:
to follow a stream to its origin.
2.rise or derivation from a particular source:
the origin of a word.
3.the first stage of existence; beginning:
the origin of Quakerism in America.

​

change
[cheynj]

verb (used with object), changed, changing.

1.to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion;
to change the course of history.
2.to transform or convert (usually followed by into):
The witch changed the prince into a toad.

​

evolution
[ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]

noun

1.any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2.a product of such development; something evolved :
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.​

That is the ToE response to an embarrassing question. "Uh, it doesn't matter...let's move on"

What's to be embarrassed about? Why is it so difficult to understand that evolution is only concerned with one sphere of inquiry: change. NOT origins. That you want it to address origins is nice I guess, but it ain't going to happen.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think you have been fed lies. I listed scientists in this forum that reject evolution. And the fact that a scientist believes in intelligent design or in creation versus evolution seems to label them in the evolution camp as working for "creationist think tanks." Propagandists have been known to play fast and loose with the truth and the truth is a significant number of scientists do not accept the ToE as factual.

Where is the list? I would like to go through it.

 

[SkylarHunter]

"The Greatest Show on Earth" is an excellent book. I am glad to hear you read that, what did you think of it?

.

I think of all people who defend evolution, Dawkins is one of the best (that I know off). The book is very well written and I give him credit for knowing how to make his point of view stand. I suppose that being a scientist who's life work has been evolutionary theory people tend to go with "if he says so, he must know what he's talking about" but sorry, not enough to "convert" me.
I like the fact that he wrote a book about evolution that is not too difficult to understand and doesn't kill anyone of boredom, on the contrary.
My personal view, I was expecting more proof. I don't want to make this too long so I'll tell you about a couple of little things that stuck in my head. He says something about dogs descending from wolves (or something like that) but first, how can he be sure? Second, why are there still wolves if they evolved into something else?
He links several plants and animals to common ancestors but there is no physical evidence of that. Just because he says broccoli, kale and cabbage all came from the same plant, why would that have to be true?
He makes a lot of connections that he believes logic from his point of view, but I found the book has a lot more speculation than what I can consider solid evidence from where I'm standing.

 

[SkylarHunter]

This translates into I cannot accept evolution because I want to believe I'm special, molded with purpose, and part of a grand design.

Not necessarily but I like that line of thought now that you mentioned it.

 

[Curious George]

Not necessarily but I like that line of thought now that you mentioned it.

I was trying to be fair. I thought that encapsulated your statements, and I don't think this in itself is bad or harmful. What I am contentious toward is the insistence of so many that evolution is not true, not that they simply do not, or can not, believe it.

What I observe happening in many instances is the movement from belief to the statement of fact and for support of those facts they use ad himinem arguments. This of course happens with some evolutionists as well- but there is a good chance that I do not usually find these as disagreeable because I do agree with their ultimate conclusion. However, the majority of evolutionists --or so it seems to me-- will at least try to provide argument before delving into "the other side is being absurd-- line of thought. Most people who reject evolution start from that point. They say "how absurd I see a house, or I find a cell phone..." Such an argument is, foremostly, fallacious because it begs the question, and secondly it is an ad hominem attack.

There was a poster shemawawa or Sherman, I forget exactly. But he at least tried to tout evidence. He would of course challenge people and refuse to accept their counters as acceptable explanations...But at least he tried to focus on actual evidence.

While I have no problem with people feeling or believing out of necessity, if you do not have evidence why not just admit it. If evolutionary theory doesn't make sense why not ask questions and point to why it doesn't make sense. If you aren't going to bring evidence, and you aren't going to bring inquiry then let it go.. But for your love of God, don't spend your time belittling a theory that the majority of the world does "get." Especially don't do this to your kids.

 

[rusra02]

Simple you want to see a house and therefore assume there is a designer.

Assume correctly.

 

[rusra02]

Where is the list? I would like to go through it.

I posted this May 1, 2014:
↑
Where? I have searched for "biologists who reject evolution" and have found no such list. Can you provide a link, or perhaps a new list?
This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.
Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower

 

[Curious George]

Assume correctly.

Yes I do believe I did assume correctly that this is your desire.

 

[Skwim]

I posted this May 1, 2014:
↑
Where? I have searched for "biologists who reject evolution" and have found no such list. Can you provide a link, or perhaps a new list?
This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.
Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium. . . . . .

. . . . . Dr. D.B. Gower

I noticed you slipped in a few ringers---non-biologists. Naughty, naughty! In any case, it's well known that there are a few scientists who don't acknowledge evolution; however, consider Project Steve.

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend."

source
​

So assuming these "Steves" represent around 1% of all scientists, the 1,366 Steves that have responded represent 136,600 scientists who affirm evolution.