Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[YoursTrue]

Now you are trying to dishonestly twist what was said.

What Gould found was that there are times of very rapid evolution. Gradualism used to be thought to be the way that life evolved. They found that gradualism, which can be observed, was not the only way that life evolved.

Why does reality bother you so much that it causes you to break the Ninth Commandment?

No I like that. Not the only way life evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you're the one twisting. I simply recognized what he was saying. And very rapid evolution...lol... I can only imagine. Yes, very rapid.

You know better than that. Your inappropriate "lol"s convict you

You repeatedly have shown that you are in no position to oppose the theory of evolution. You should be asking questions honestly and properly. There is nothing wrong with asking proper questions. But "gotcha questions" are almost always dishonest. Again, as a Christian you need to remember the Ninth Commandment. Lying for Jesus is still a breaking of that law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I like that. Not the only way life evolved.

You do not seem to realize that the evidence for evolution is stronger than the evidence for gravity. You would treat anyone that denied gravity as a fool and yet you do not seem to see how that applies to you and your posts. There is no real doubt about evolution in the world of science. What is being discussed is how it happened.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it doesn’t.

I’ll try to explain, but I doubt you’ll understand it.
When A&E chose to rebel, Jehovah removed (most of) His protection from them. That also applied to the Earth. Remember God saying that “thorns and thistles” would affect Adam’s farming?
Jehovah put the systems in place, like the water cycle, etc., to care for the Earth, but these systems get out of hand sometimes. Same w/ living organisms.
Jehovah’s spirit does not ‘permeate this planet’ as it did in the beginning, but it will once again. Isaiah 11:6-9 reveals that.

But that contradicts your earlier comment about how one of the main problems you had early on with evolution was over your disbelief that evolutionary mechanisms could generate "complex information". As I noted earlier, the plasmodium life cycle that allows it to cause malaria is very, very complex. You've already said you don't believe that complexity could have come about naturally, but above you're saying it wasn't God who created it either. So exactly how did it come about in your view?

Also, I notice that you ignored the following....

In your last flood thread you made a blanket accusation against geologists, asserting that one of the reasons they don't accept the Biblical flood is because of the professional consequences they'd face if they deviated from standard geology. Yet here, even in light of descriptions from fellow Witnesses as to what social and emotional consequences you'd face if you deviated from JW doctrine on evolution, you deny that it's a factor at all!

How do you reconcile those two seemingly contradictory positions?​

...and....

Why, when the question of evolutionary common descent comes up, don't you point out that it conflicts with your religion and leave it at that? Why do you have to take that next step and start arguing the science? ​

Are you honestly saying that you being a Jehovah's Witness (and thereby believing that evolutionary common descent is the same as "saying my beliefs are trash") has no effect at all on how you view the evidence?

You also just waved away my explanation of what was behind Gould and Eldredge's PE model by calling it "apologetics" without explanation. So I'll ask again....do you think you being a JW influences how you view and process PE?

Do you appreciate, or even realize, how well that illustrates the point of the OP?

 

[Jose Fly]

Hey, btw @Subduction Zone @Dan From Smithville and @YoursTrue can you guys please take your abiogenesis discussion back over to the EvC forum and help keep this thread on topic?

 

[Jose Fly]

Intriguing question - one that they seem to have a hard time digesting.

Or even acknowledging. Ignoring it altogether seems to be the default approach.

 

[Jose Fly]

"We never claimed either that gradualism could not occur in theory, or did not occur in fact (Eldredge 1971; Eldredge and Gould 1974, p. 307)."
- Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered Stephen Jay Gould; Niles Eldredge Paleobiology, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Spring, 1977), pp. 115-151.​

I am not certain, of course, but I would bet that the above quote will not be seen in any creationist writings.

Or this one (LINK)...

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I like that. Not the only way life evolved.

What is your understanding of punctuated equilibrium?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey, btw @Subduction Zone @Dan From Smithville and @YoursTrue can you guys please take your abiogenesis discussion back over to the EvC forum and help keep this thread on topic?

Sorry. Just going with the flow a little to easily I suppose.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey, btw @Subduction Zone @Dan From Smithville and @YoursTrue can you guys please take your abiogenesis discussion back over to the EvC forum and help keep this thread on topic?

Actually, the conflation of abiogenesis with evolution makes it sort of problematic and contributes to the disruption. That may be a tactic to disrupt for all I know. I just keep falling for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Dan From Smithville I understand how it can be difficult to let creationists' posts go by without rebuttal, but you guys have had the exact same debate on other threads in the EvC forum, so there's no reason to repeat it here.

Thanks again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I like that. Not the only way life evolved.

You believe @Hockeycowboy, but you did not answer my question. Are you a JW? Do you dismiss evolution based on scientific grounds or on doctrinal grounds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville I understand how it can be difficult to let creationists' posts go by without rebuttal, but you guys have had the exact same debate on other threads in the EvC forum, so there's no reason to repeat it here.

Thanks again.

No problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How? And to stay on topic, do you think that maybe a factor in you jumping so quickly to that conclusion is influenced by you being a JW?

Could it be that admitting that objection to science is doctrinal diminishes the denial to them in some way. This may go back to the idea that even for the religious, science has become recognized as the authoritative yardstick. That they can no longer simply deny it based on scripture, but have to manufacture some pseudoscience objection that sounds technical enough to soothe them and fulfill their obligations to doctrine. To admit it is simply doctrine might be seen as an admission to the authority of the science that they tacitly recognize, but openly deny. I am not sure that I have articulated my idea very well, but it is where my thought is at this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, btw @Subduction Zone @Dan From Smithville and @YoursTrue can you guys please take your abiogenesis discussion back over to the EvC forum and help keep this thread on topic?

Actually I was discussing evolution, Gould punctuated equilibrium, etc.. But no problem.

 

[nPeace]

I have never in my life met somebody who didn't accept evolution because of real scientific reasons.
Ever single evolution denier I have ever come accross, didn't accept evolution primarily because it was incompatible with his/her religious beliefs.

Okay. I said I know people... personally. Do you expect to meet all eight billion people, and ask them? Happy surveying.

And in the case of @Hockeycowboy , he actually also pretty much admitted as much in this very thread. I guess you didn't read that part yet.

Admit what? I can't read your mind. So it would be helpful, if you please state. What did Hockeycowboy admit?

As for the focus on JW's, it make sense to me.
Creationism is part of the official doctrine of JW. JWs are also pretty well known for strict adherence to their doctrines AND the big effort of leadership to make sure it stays that way.

I have no problem if one focuses on JWs. Cool.
Did I say it was a problem? Could you point out exactly where?
Please read my post carefully.

So, yeah, I don't see anything specifically wrong with saying that evolution denial by a JW is very likely directly related to JW doctrine.

"Very likely" Ah, but you see how so different that is to... "It is". Even after being told by a JW, that it isn't, after you repeatedly asked him, and he gave you his reason, even showing you that it is nonsense, because even before becoming a JW he did not accept it, as is the case with many non JWs?

@Hockeycowboy in this thread also shared a link with "science postings" by JWs. I scrolled around for a bit and one of the things I encountered concerning biology, was literally a playbook detailing the tactics / strategy that should be used be JW's in how to talk with an evolutionist about evolution.

I actually posted the excerpt earlier today in this very thread. You should have no problem finding it. It's only a couple posts above yours, on the same page.

The fact that such playbooks are published in their Watchtower, seems to be pretty consistent with the idea that as an organization they really do tell them what to believe and say about topics such as evolution.

I would not be surprised if you found a playbook outlining what to say, and how to refute, every possible topic you can think of.
To you, reasoning on something, and presenting that reason to others, is to you, a playbook.
To me, it's arming soldiers to be efficient in offense and defense. After all, we are in a warfare - a spiritual battle against enemies of God-fearing people.

Really?


Please share evidence that these people rejected evolution while being atheist.
I quickly googled it and found no evidence of this at all.

You seemed to unfortunately, have broken up a paragraph that contains words going together.
Perhaps this is why you did not grasp what was said.
Many Atheist don't think about evolution. They simply are taught it, and don't question it, nor consider the evidence for it. On investigating, they take a closer look at the evidence. This is what these Atheist did.
Even so. for a Atheist to reject evolution, and accept creation, after looking closely at the evidence, tells us a lot, about the strength of the so-called evidence for evolution.

So how reasonable is it to focus on a small group of Christians, which are so small, in comparison to millions of people, who reject the theory of evolution by looking at the evidence - including reputable scientists?
Now let's hear the chime, you don't know of any reputable scientists that reject the claim that the theory has supporting evidence.

So you know, since you can't work it out for yourself.
JWs are universally united in what they believe - not because someone took all of them and shoved them in a machine, and when they came out, their brains were fried.
Think of JWs in this way.
Have you ever noticed that people flood to a particular restaurant / deli / bakery, so that it is always packed, and new people turn up all the time?
Why do these people flood there? They smell the aroma, as they drive by. They popped in, and their taste-buds were ecstatic.
The point - JWs are people who are united in teaching, because they were attracted from all nationalities, races, backgrounds, to what they found to be truth from God's word.
They accepted these, on their own accord - without being coerced - on investigating for themselves.
So the fact that they all believe that there is no supporting evidence for evolution, is based on their own reason. In the same way that they all reject blood transfusions, the trinity, hellfire, immortal soul, Christmas, etc.
In short, they are united by divine teaching. Micah 4:1-5

Again I'll refer you back to the "playbook" I found on the watchtower website that was linked by @Hockeycowboy , which he posted in context of his comment that "JW does a lot of postings on science".

When the organization literally gives you a playbook on how to "trap" evolutionists (using dishonest tactics like shifting goalposts, quote mining, strawmanning, etc... btw), then it seems like Fly hasn't lied at all.

It means that it's literally part of the doctrine to be against evolution, just like he said.


a particular

Then why does the watchtower website shared by @Hockeycowboy , supposedly to "prove" how JWs do a lot of postings on "science" contain a playbook instructing JW followers on how to use dishonest and fallacious tactics when talking about evolution?

This is your opinion.
Many people - millions - access the JW website daily, and they have a far different view to yours.
They say the information is well researched, reasonably presented, informative, and enlightening, and both refreshing and encouraging. It causes one to think (Is that what you are afraid of, hence your complaint?) - rather than gulp down the camel, like most willing Atheists do.
[GALLERY=media, 8807]DarWine by nPeace posted Dec 18, 2018 at 5:01 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually I was discussing evolution, Gould punctuated equilibrium, etc.. But no problem.

Thanks.

 

[Jose Fly]

Could it be that admitting that objection to science is doctrinal diminishes the denial to them in some way.

I think it has to be, at least to some degree. Otherwise, why are they seemingly so ashamed of it?

This may go back to the idea that even for the religious, science has become recognized as the authoritative yardstick. That they can no longer simply deny it based on scripture, but have to manufacture some pseudoscience objection that sounds technical enough to soothe them and fulfill their obligations to doctrine. To admit it is simply doctrine might be seen as an admission to the authority of the science that they tacitly recognize, but openly deny. I am not sure that I have articulated my idea very well, but it is where my thought is at this time.

I think you're spot on (and you put it very well).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yet the Jehovah's Witnesses would have us believe that each of them researched evolutionary biology and independently arrived at the exact same conclusions and talking points. That they line up precisely with JW doctrine is just a coincidence.

That is an amazing coincidence. I find certain details don't seem to support that. Obviously, so does everybody questioning it.

As long as those organizations tell the creationists what they want to hear....the Bible is true and evolution is false....that's all most of them will care about. How they came to that conclusion is largely irrelevant.

I think so too.

In general I think you're correct. But I also have had a fair number of fundamentalist Christians (non-JWs) acknowledge to me that staying true to scripture and valuing "the word of God over the works of man" is the primary factor in how they approach the issue. Jehovah's Witnesses OTOH? Never.

Given that there are individuals on this forum that are adamant about the authority of scripture negating any challenge, it does seem strange. I still wonder if there is some subliminal acceptance that science has a very compelling argument and that simply dismissing it as against doctrine seems, even to a group of believers, to be less fulfilling than beating it on its own ground. Revealing that openly could be seen as revealing a weak faith to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. I said I know people... personally. Do you expect to meet all eight billion people, and ask them? Happy surveying.

Really? You know people with an adequate education that reject evolution not based upon religious beliefs? Can you tell me why they are not to be found on any internet forums, at least not any that I know of.