It has long been known that, when it comes to their efforts to discredit evolution, Watchtower writers are more than willing to utilize the dark arts of misquoting to get their point across.
In June last year I published an article about how the Creation book had been found to gravely misquote Paleontologist Niles Eldredge (among others) on the subject.
Watchtower took a magazine article where Eldredge talked about disagreement between evolutionists NOT meaning that evolution itself is untrue, and edited it to make it sound like he was conceding the exact opposite point. (For a full essay debunking the Creation book, click here.)
Now it seems Watchtower’s writers are at it again, this time in an anti-science issue of the Awake! magazine entitled “How Did Life Begin?”
Arguing against a false proposition
The first thing worth noticing about this magazine is the way it mis-characterizes evolution as being an attempted answer to the question of how life first started.
This is a common “straw man” argument used by proponents of creationism to attack evolution by asserting that it tries to explain how life first originated, when this is simply not the case.
Evolution is the means by which living things change and develop over millions of years by natural processes that can be studied and understood (see video below).
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, describes the process of life arising from non-living matter, and it is a different field of study entirely. There is still a great deal of doubt and uncertainty surrounding abiogenesis, but evolution ceased to be debated among credible scientists long ago.
But Watchtower wants you to think that scientists ARE still debating whether or not life evolves, which is where biologist Ram Singh enters the picture.
Manufacturing controversy where there is none
The January Awake! magazine begins with the statement: “SOME might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick ‘evolution’ and that a religious person would pick ‘creation.’ But not always.”
It then quotes Singh as saying: “The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.”
It is thus strongly insinuated that Singh, as a “scientifically-minded person,” is opposed to evolution. But, following subsequent investigation, it has since come to light that this could not be further from the truth.
Singh was approached by Misha Anouk (author of the German-language book “Goodbye, Jehova!” and editor of JWalumni.org) in an attempt to clarify matters.
A strong rebuttal
After being straightforwardly asked whether he agrees or disagrees with evolution and/or endorses the way he was quoted in the Awake! magazine, Singh had this to say:
“JW has indeed misquoted me and I do not agree with their article and its anti-evolution stand.”
So strongly were Singh’s feelings on the matter that he went on to pen a 500-word open letter to the editor of the Awake! magazine demanding that his quote be retracted and an apology printed. The scathing letter, which is reproduced in full on JWalumni.org, accuses the Awake! editor of “intellectual dishonesty” by “taking half a sentence out of context from my article on evolution.”
Out of context
Indeed, Singh’s original article from which the Awake! writers quoted bemoans and attempts to explain ignorance surrounding evolution. It certainly doesn’t portray evolution in a negative light or try to refute it.
Here is the paragraph from which the quote was taken (full paper available here):
“The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population, including biologists, nonbiologists, and the lay public. This essay will focus on the lack of belief in evolution in this latter group; opposition from religious fundamentalism has been covered in many places (Kitcher 1982; Futuyma 1983; Montagu 1984; Young 1985; Gould 1999; Dawkins 2006; Coyne 2009). There are several reasons why facts of evolution are not easily comprehensible by the general masses.“
I think I can safely predict that Awake! will not be publishing a retraction or issuing an apology to Mr Singh, as much as this is owed him.
Awake’s deliberate attempt at deception, like so many other instances of its kind in Watchtower literature, will be concealed from the average Witness, whose only hope of uncovering it will lie in thorough, objective research on the internet, from which Witnesses are repeatedly dissuaded by their spiritual overlords.
But thanks to Singh speaking out on this matter, at least Awake! is acquiring the reputation for shoddy journalism, deceit and duplicity among the general, internet-savvy public that it richly deserves.
Further reading…
- Misha Anouk’s article on JWalumni.org
- Friendly Atheist article on Awake magazine misquote
- INQUISITR article on Awake magazine misquote
- FreeThinker article on Awake Magazine misquote
- JWfacts article on deception in Watchtower literature
- JWsurvey articles on evolution and creation
Related video…
What a great answer was given by Singh!
The Watchtower is always running articles warning the followers to stay away from so-called apostate websites. The Watchtower says these “apostates” are lying about the Watchtower and so are not to be believed. What about misquotes in their articles? Aren’t these lies? Apostates could so easily do the same thing to the words Watchtower prints. I will give you an example:
In the “Live Forever in Paradise on Earth” book on page 19, I am quoting what it says “God made himself the Devil, that is, a hateful liar who speaks bad things about another. He also made himself Satan.
That statement could sound very damming. But this is the whole quote:
“The time came, however, when one of these spirit sons of God made himself the Devil, that is, a hateful liar who speaks bad things about another. He also made himself Satan, that is, an opposer of God.”
Two entirely different statements from the same sentence, but a dishonest person (liar) will deliberately misquote written words for their own evil ends.
Who does this? I don’t remember any so-called “apostates” from the JW’s doing that against the Watchtower but they could do it if they wanted to. Only Watchtower resorts to these underhanded tactics to gain converts. Who are the true apostates?
All so-called “apostates” have to do to show Watchtower for the liars they are, is to use their own literature against them and they don’t have to resort to misquotes to do it. The Watchtower condemns itself with it’s own words.
I would hope Rama Singh sues to protect his reputation. All those years of education and he gets a bad name does not equal JW.Org’s reputation where they are against people getting an education!
Funny how the org has to misquote those that have an education. This is not an accident that the org keeps doing this for they won’t stop. It’s going to take hefty law suites to make them stop. I would hope Rama starts the ball rolling.
These writers are not idiots, they know they’re distorting the truth.
But what does it tell you about their genuineness as Christians? how
do they square it with their conscience.? Deliberately lying to sway
and convert people to their views. It’s what the w,t, does, searches
the news, and for scientific articles, and takes a phrase out of context
to advance their agenda, it’s one of the oldest propaganda tricks in
the book.
If you need to resort to lying to prove your argument, then you don’t have a valid argument. It’s funny how the JW organization says that “apostates” use lies and half truths when the fact is, it is they who are guilty of this. I hope he sues them for their deceptive lies.
@Anonymous, If ever I have to go to court against the w,t,
I’d like you to represent me.
Not mentioned in Cedars’ article is that the quote from Professor Gerard is also misleading: he’s a Jehovah’s Witness… how odd, no? A JW confirming a JW point of view haha! Information taken from linked article, see also:
http://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/2kjyfz/gerards_identity_revealed/
I’m not familiar with the law regarding this, could he sue to force them to publish a retraction? I’d definitely want a copy of that Awake……..
I recall about 5 years ago a WT article on evolution that quoted Francis Collins. I don’t recall the quote but the idea was that here is a scientist that believes in god, not evolution.
While it is true that Francis became a Christian, he has rejected both Young Earth creationism and intelligent design and is an devout believer of evolution. Something the article left out.
@Ted, thank for saying that. I do think I could have made a good lawyer though! I have enough contempt for the Society to give it my all if I ever had a chance to talk to them face to face where they couldn’t run away from me.
Anonymous, very well put about the misquoting.
It is not necessary to lie and/or misquote to disprove evolution. There are credible sources for doing so such as Answers in Genesis, The Discovery Institute and The Institute for Creation Research.
The Watchtower stinks, but lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It is presumptuous that all scientists are “neutral” and “objective” with no prejudices or presuppositions.
Science continually changes its theories according to the presuppositions of the culture in which it exists. The scientists is controlled by his presuppositions as well as his worldview. Scientists make mistakes and produce false theories and evolution is a THEORY, which has not disproved Scripture.
Linda, welcome to JWsurvey.
It’s clear from your comments (particularly “evolution is a THEORY”) that you don’t understand what evolution is despite attacking it so vehemently. Hopefully you will find the following video enlightening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHUlDQk8gL0
And this is not about “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” (how I loath that cliche). As Rama Singh noted in his reply to the Awake editor: “Accepting evolution does not bar you from believing in God and vice versa.” It’s a shame that the likes of yourself and the ridiculous Ken Ham (President of “Answers In Genesis,” which you cite as a “credible source”) have to create problems where none exist by trying to denigrate science and turn evolution into a God vs. atheism issue.
How Mr.Singh meant his words he has to know the best and if he things that Awake misquoted and misunderstood his statement he deserve apology ! More pragmatic approach is to contact the person in advance and ask him about his statement “how he really meant it” also and thus get his consent for using and republishing.Thus avoid future misunderstanding and shame.The other thing is “manufacturing controversy were is none ” really?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
The internet is full of references and interviews with scientist who disagree with theory of evolution I can spent rest of the day providing links or references but anybody can do the same.Personally I think this doesn’t make impression that all scientific community is “evolution united”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8
some of my comments here also under other articles are awaiting moderation and they are not visible to others so hope one day whey will be moderated and thus published :-)otherwise I don’t know what I should think of this…
nothing personal against you Cedars pls,I just don’t fully understand how this forum really works because some comments are published instantly some are awaiting the approval & moderation…its I bit perplexing what are the criteria to get publish here or not…thanks Cedars
Lions Pit: I’ll try to answer your question since I help out with website maintenance. First of all, being blocked can happen to any comment on this site because on any given day it gets hundreds of spam and nonsense postings. Our settings are very tight, and yet we let dozens of comments through every day. Cedars will review and release comments that have been put in the queue for review, but he is very busy and has been traveling lately. I jump in to run maintenance operations at least once every 7-10 days. Some days I only do updates and clear logs. Some days I will review the held and spam comments listings to see what Cedars has not released yet. Comments can be held for many reasons – but most often it will be due to a word or phrase that the review engine considers potentially offensive. Be sure to actually read the comment posting guidelines below this comment section (it’s on every page with comments). You may discover what you are doing to generate a false positive. In the meantime, I will try to step in more often to give Cedars a hand in reviewing comments and getting legtimate ones released sooner.
Linda Cebrian,
With the deepest of respect, I would just like to put the case for the Scientific Method. I agree that individual prejudices and presuppositions do appear in science, but they shouldn’t. In the scientific method, the goal is to try to destroy a theory, not prove it.
It has allowed many ordinary people everywhere to live in a level of comfort and good health that are simply amazing!
I have every respect for your genuine belief in Creation. I trust that you have equal respect for my scientific evaluation that evolution is a fact. I appreciate that you can point to scientific evidence too, I did not mean to denigrate your beliefs, sorry about that.
Now, we need to make it known! The WTBTS are guilty of intellectual dishonesty! This is verifiable and can easily be slipped in to conversations! We have got the scumbags!!!
Peace be with you,
Excelsior!
@Juan thanks you very much for your kind explanation ,much appreciated ! all the best guys !
The deceit of the GB on misquoting and misrepresenting others was the final nail for me, once I realised that they were being so deceitful that was it.
Thank you GB.
@ Man from the lions
Thanks for the Berlinski video link. As he says near the end, “evidentiary points need to be examined openly and honestly, and they never are.”
Evolution started as a theory, but it’s become a religion too. RIP, scientific method.
@ Man from the lions
The theory under discussion is a hot button for our host. The “E” word seems to be on the potential offensive list held for review.
I’m glad Linda’s comment, and your video link, made it through.
The article says the theory “ceased to be debated among credible scientists long ago” but that statement is as false as the WT’s claim to the faithful and discreet slave.
Excelsior, you called Linda’s view a “belief” but yours a “fact.” That’s intellectually dishonest, and proves you don’t respect views differing from your own. It’s comical how you wail when you don’t get the respect you refuse to give.
I doubt you even understand what the scientific method is. See if you can reconcile your misconceptions about science with Berlinski’s video.
It is a THEORY. If you watched Berlinski’s video you should know that.
Go ahead and ban me. You’re as dishonest as the WT. This web site is snakepit of atheism with a “JW rescue” sign posted at the entrance.
Truth seekers beware.
Found Tobelies – please research what “theory” means in a scientific context. The video I have posted in response to Linda should help.
And if I am being dishonest for accepting evolution and not promoting Watchtower’s anti-science views, then so is every high school, college and university.
And before I’m banned, some parting words …
An atheist quoting a book of faith is like a rapist quoting Kama Sutra.
Are we to take from this outrageous comment that atheists are as bad as rapists?
Nope. But if you’re going to ban me, I won’t elaborate. Your call.
Why should I ban you? Your anti-science rants perfectly showcase the ignorance that is required to deny evolution.
OK Cedars …
I expect you agree, a rapist has no credibility or authority giving sexual advice to his victim.
Atheists are not bad people because of their view. But neither do they have credibility when trying to argue from a book of faith on how the faithful should understand the book.
You may think I’m a fool for rejecting evolution. Say what you like. I can give criticism, and take it too. As for schools and universities, whether they are dishonest or deceived, the result is the same.
Berlinsky’s video is scientifically sound. What rebuttal do you have to it?
Your rapist analogy gets more outrageous and offensive. It doesn’t even merit a rebuttal – it is just so ridiculous.
As to Berlinsky’s “scientifically sound” video, I don’t need to issue a rebuttal. That’s already been done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrCT9Rjc9iA
Deterlucem vs. Berlinkski. Not convincing to me.
You asked for elaboration of the rapist analogy, and I gave it. That was not part of the scientific question under consideration for rebuttal.
If you want to expose fallacies of the WT, I can support that. But if you want a fan club persuaded to agree with your own personal beliefs, you’re squandering a true opportunity. You’re smart enough to do some real good. Why waste it.
“Deterlucem vs. Berlinkski. Not convincing to me.” – I would be surprised if you said otherwise.
“if you want a fan club persuaded to agree with your own personal beliefs, you’re squandering a true opportunity.” – Evolution is not my “personal belief.” It is accepted science. I suggest you deal with it, or redirect your anger at the scientific community. And I’m not interested in acquiring a fan club. I’m interested in speaking the truth – even if this comes at the cost of offending those like yourself who have been conditioned by cults to reject science.
Hi Cedars and all.
You are right, and this is one of the main reasons why I left entirely more than 10 years ago. The Watchtower Society proves itself to be very haughty and judgmental. Why don’t they instead admit their mistake in misquoting Rama Singh and publish a neat apology in the Awake! magazine? It would honor the Society. But it is not going to happen.
The Watchtower is a very dangerous religion. Adding to the problem is that it is a global one.
Found Tobelies. You need to read Excelsior’s comments again but without emotion. He was saying that he welcomes debate on this subject but just without insults.
I had a conversation with my husband just a few days ago on this very subject and at first he was very angry and insisted that creation by an intelligent creator was a “fact” but after discussing it for about 15 minutes, he said that “no” he didn’t say it was a fact. He was very emotionally involved and it was hard for him to comprehend what I was trying to say to him.
People who have very strong beliefs in God are very emotionally attached to Him because they love Him because they feel they owe their very lives to Him. So, when somebody calls into question that there might be a different opinion about how they came into existence, they become angry. It is because their emotions are involved.
What evolutionists are saying is not how we came into existence in the first place but simply how life evolves. The example in the above video that Cedars put up, talks about bacteria and how scientists keep coming up with different antibiotics to fight the stronger and stronger strains of bacteria. That is evolution. It’s not about how life began in the first place. That is what anti-evolutionists are fighting about. They don’t understand what the argument is about. They are fighting against what they don’t understand. I think where evolutionists make their mistake is by saying for a “fact” that men came from monkeys and I totally disagree with that but I will explain that later why I don’t believe that for a minute.
Even the Society has given the explanation that life evolved and that is because of the ark story. Nobody could believe for a minute that all species were on the ark so people could believe in creation by God if they thought that God implanted into different animals on the ark where they could have had the genes in them that could have produced many different “kinds” so that is why a scientist could possibly believe in creation and evolution.
Nobody knows how life began. All they do is guess and look at the evidence either way. Nobody should insist on either way because nobody can know how life began. It’s a battle that can’t be won.
People want to believe in God because they can’t deal with how life began. It’s like when people tell you when you ask how life began and they say that God was always. He had no beginning and he has no end. How can we understand that? Humans can’t. They “think” they can figure that out but that is arrogant. Some things just can’t be explained and never will be understood. That is a fact and humans should learn to live with it instead of thinking they can figure it out. They should just enjoy the life they were given and do the best job they can in this life. Try to change life for the better if possible. Don’t live in a vacuum. Try to do something worth while during the life they have. Don’t try and “make” people believe in something that can’t be proven either way. That will only lead to frustration.
The reason I don’t believe personally that men came from apes is because of language. Thousands of years ago, the languages were very much more complicated than they are today. Many languages have been lost. Where today we may have 5 words to describe something, thousands of years ago, they might have had 20. Another thing is that you can tell where everybody came from in the world by, not only their language, but even the accent of their language. By their accent, you can tell which part of the country they came from. In the United States, you can pinpoint right down to the county where somebody came from and that is because people speak exactly the same way their parents spoke.
Who can explain all the different languages? The Bible has an explanation and it is plausible. That is the account about the Tower of Babel. Who is to say though, that if there is a God that made humans, that he didn’t make lots of people and give them all different languages? It’s just a guess how we got all the languages. The diversity of language is what convinces me that we didn’t evolve from apes.
Did Adam and Eve give birth to apes? Who knows? We don’t know but a person could believe that and that God made humans and he put those genes in them. The problem comes when you express those beliefs and you are shot down as insane. People should be able to express their beliefs without being shut down as insane but that is what happens. People in this Society are so emotionally involved and God oriented, that if a person expresses a thought that is “different”, they are taken as insane. People should be able to express themselves without being labeled as insane. That is how we learn and come up with plausible explanations.
So, read Excelsior’s comments again and without emotion, okay? Cedars and Excelsior both say they welcome debate on the subject but without insults.
How about creation via the evolutionary process folks?
Don’t you think that is possible, if not probable?
I believe in a Universal Creator 100 percent, but I also understand the creation process to be along the lines of what evolutionists believe except that Charles Darwin was considerably of with his theory on natural selection and so on.
But then again, no one knows everything, do they?
I feel somewhat nauseated when I perceive someone coming across as a bully no matter what side they are defending. The confrontational, “in your face” approach doesn’t work for me.
Believing in fallacies of the WT is just one step, if indeed that is true. The harsh debate, accusations, insulting on a personal level, “everyone else is wrong” are all very reminiscent of dealing w/ JW’s. And it scares me.
There is a difference in disagreement on an intellectual level w/ jw’s compared to the baggage others bring w/ them. The emotional, mental, even physical abuse, shunning, kicked out as teenagers, families torn apart for a lifetime, isolation and the list goes on. The cavalier attitude makes light of some of the injustices others have suffered at the hands of WT org. It Indicates there might not be a clue as to how deeply wounded others can be or respect for their situations.
At this point I would gladly prefer a compassionate agnostic over a surly Christian. I am hesitant to express this view. I feel certain it will bring on more attacks.
Found Tobelius:
“You may think I’m a fool for rejecting evolution. Say what you like. I can give criticism, and take it too.”
I don’t think you are a fool, but this is not a subject that is open to serious scientific challenge.
That is what a theory is, in SCIENCE, as opposed to police work or just discussion.
A theory is a working hypothesis that scientists work to disprove; evolution has not been disproved.
As for your rapist analogy, this offensive analogy shows the desperation of your argument; you need to associate those who don’t believe in an invisible sky man with criminals.
I believe in evolution and a god, my religion is Deism.
That said, I have to admit, I do find it comical that someone can still believe the bible story about man’s origins. Death didn’t come about by fruit eating, it’s the creation of god if a god exists.
The role of religion is partially, to describe the origins of suffering and death, and now we know that the creator made those things alone. There is not such a thing as a Satan, GOD was the creator of death and suffering, fruit eating does not cause death. Death was here long before humans walked the planet and without death and suffering, our species would’t exist. Nor would any species exist.
So, I understand the criticisms of evolution, but what about the silly story the bible tells about death. It seems interesting to me so many believers can attack evolution and not see how wrong the bible is about it all.
Found Tobelies,
You have misunderstood my comment. My comment clearly states that it is my personal opinion that evolution is a fact. What is wrong with that? It is not intellectually dishonest. I acknowledge the right of others to disagree with me. I hope that this clears up any confusion. I apologise if my words caused any offence to those who believe in Creation. That was not my intent.
I have not found our battles on another thread comical in the least. I have been very disappointed that your contributions on the Conti Appeal thread, which were sound, logical and helpful to the discussion, have not been of the same kind here and on the other thread. I have not been wailing. I have attempted to explain to you why your comments are offensive, and, in my opinion, wrong.
I explain what the Scientific Method is, as a brief summary, in my comment to Linda Cebrain. It is an accurate, if brief, explanation of the general concepts involved.
It is a shame that you have really done yourself no favours here.
Peace be with you,
Excelsior!
Just to touch a bit on the issue of suing for libel/slander by if initiated biologist Ram Singh. What would be the economic lost to Ram Singh based on his scientific reputation being damaged? Like most publications there are these so-called “escape clauses” through statements of limitations in the public domain from books, magazines & even blog sites like this one. We have rules of the road and opinions of the writers. I would think Watchtower writer’s would have themselves well covered and Ram Singh did what exactly he should have done, a strong documented rebuttal. Now, will the WT present their counter with their bank of scientific scholars? (chuckling). Has now the WT’s statements of limitations just entered to a form of thought provoking entertainment, Hollywood style?
dogstar
PS IMHO
What is so ironic to me is why the Watchtower thinks it has to resort to misrepresentations to get their point across. They could have taken a bunch of good thoughts from the Creation book to show intelligent design without resorting to lies to convince people of a God.
When we were going through the Creation book at the Book study, I saw a lot of things the Society could have pointed out that would make it seem reasonable for intelligent design.
One thing that to me is so amazing is our atmosphere. Every square inch of our atmosphere is full of bacteria, both good and bad, but you can’t see it and nobody gives it a thought. These bacteria balance each other out. How I illustrate it is this: Open up a jar from the store that has to be refrigerated, once it’s opened. If you leave that jar out, the contents will spoil, no matter how quickly, you stick the top of the jar back on. That is how much bacteria is in the air. The fact that bacteria is in every square inch of our atmosphere is essential for life to exist, or else nothing would turn back to dust or ground. We all know that earth worms are essential and bees are essential but who gives a thought to bacteria?
Our bodies are full of bacteria, both good and bad and the good bacteria balances out the bad bacteria. If it was all good bacteria in the world, the world could not exist as it is. How did that happen? Who can explain it?
What can’t be explained, people think they have to come up with answer to it, but why? Why do people think they have to know everything that can’t be explained? That is our limitation and people should be humble able to accept that we don’t know what we don’t know as Socrates said. People who don’t accept the fact that people can’t know everything are stupid in my opinion.
People who have a lot of knowledge in one area, arrogantly think they have knowledge in every area and look down on people who don’t know what so-called “stupid” people know in other areas. Who is the more stupid person? The one who thinks he knows it all.
When it comes to copyright laws, Watchtower is so quick to take down a website that dares to take some of their material and publish it on the web but when it comes to plagiarizing somebody else’s material without permission, they aren’t afraid to do it and then on top of taking it without permission, they misquote it to make it say something it didn’t say, which was in total opposite to the original statement.
anonymous,
Dear Lady, your comments recently on this topic, and the Je Suis Charlie article, have been of great merit. Thank you for your contributions to this site. It is far better for your presence.
I would like to make a small point of order on your comment about human beings evolving from apes. Modern apes and human beings share common ancestors, from many millions of years ago. This can be seen from the closeness of our genetic codes. Science classifies human beings as part of the primate family. So, we did not evolve from chimpanzees, or any other modern day primate.
We also have to explain about our human cousins. Homo Neandethal, was a cousin of ours, so closely related to Homo Sapiens that we interbred, and we have Homo Neandethal genes in us today. There were other human cousins around in the past as well.
You know that I have the deepest respect for your opinions. This is meant in no way as an attack on your opinion. I merely wanted to put some ideas your way, that’s all.
I have no intention of denigrating Intelligent Design, or any other theory. In science, the theories either stand or fall. It is up to all of us to evaluate for ourselves what we will choose to believe.
You are absolutely right, Dear Lady, when you state that we have no definitive proof for any explanation for how the universe and our wonderful planet came to be. As that is the case, let us all follow your fine example, and respect differing opinions in a spirit of polite debate.
Thanks for your comments.
Peace be with you,
Excelsior!
Hi Excelsior. My only problem with how a lot of evolutionists portray our ancestors is that they “all” spoke with grunts and groans and I believe that all the languages and diversity of languages dispels that theory. I am not disputing that we have ancestral cousins that may have spoken in grunts and groans. I think that is very possible. I just don’t agree that they “all” were like animals.
I know that all humans and animals have the same kinds of genes and that we all possess the same material make-up, both animals and plant life or else there would be no turning back to the ground when life dies and the earth would quickly pile up with dead stuff.
When I listen to shows about evolution, I listen for when they say “seems like and seems reasonable” just like I now do when I read Watchtower material and you hear that a lot when you watch shows that are trying to “prove” that we came from lower life forms. I keep my mind open to different opinions.
There is a good documentary on Youtube called “The Unbelievers” where noted scientists are going around to colleges and discussing evolution versus creation and the point that they are trying to make is that people should be able to discuss evolution versus creation without being made to be afraid to openly express an opinion that is different than the mainstream. The point they are making is that once you close your mind about the subject because you believe in only creation by a God, you don’t learn anymore, and people don’t progress when they close their minds to other thinking.
In Canada the news stations misquotes their sources all the time…
anonymous, I agree w/ Excelsior. I look forward to your well thought out and researched comments. I dare say you are too smart for the JW’s. Not long ago this website referenced the lecture “The Value of Our Theocratic Sisters” by Samuel Herd where he explains that men are inherently smarter than women but then he goes on to say if a woman is smarter than her husband she should hide it. (Of course they included this contradiction within the same lecture to cover all bases.) You must show amazing restraint among the brothers to hide your intelligence. So glad you have the freedom to add your thoughts here.
Excelsior, Thank you for your comments as well. The calm voice of reason is much appreciated.
Sorry this is off topic.